[License-review] Please rename "Free Public License-1.0.0" to 0BSD.

Mon Oct 15 21:02:35 UTC 2018

You can look at this from two perspectives:

1) The 0BSD name is better for those who are familiar with the BSD 
license history and want to leverage such history for meaning.

2) The FPL name is better to newcomers since the name implies meaning 
without needing the history. IMO this name is nicer for newcomers.

I would vote for introducing a concept of "license equivalency" and 
alias both names to the same text. I have no idea about the 
implications of this other than making both names available for use.

I was planning on using the FPL name extensively as I am trying to 
reach a younger audience that may not be familiar with the backstory of 
the BSD license.

I don't mean to complicate this decision nor go against the 
well-crafted argument to rename to 0BSD. Just want to point out the two 
perspectives.

My reasons for using FPL over MIT (maybe I am misguided):

   * It is not branded. I don't want to promote the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology name.
   * It is shorter and to the point.
   * I don't need to "intrusively" promote myself as the author by 
requiring a copyright statement.
   * It does not require users to include a copyright notice when 
redistributing and thus eases the compliance burden (think projects 
composed of hundreds of small FPL licensed components where the project 
will need to include the FPL license only once along with a list of the 
components vs duplicating licenses with copyright statements or 
including authors/copyright when listing components)

Christoph

P.S. I am just an individual software user and author.

On October 15, 2018 01:13:51 pm PDT, "Richard Fontana" 
<richard.fontana at opensource.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:41:27AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
>> This is such a simple request, I don't see why OSI needs to hold it up any
>> longer.
>
> I just want to make a quick independent inquiry into the issue of
> which of the two names is more widely used in practice today. As far
> as I know this would be the first time the OSI has changed the
> reference name of an OSI-approved license, post-approval. I also want
> us to be respectful to the submitter of the FPL 1.0.0, Christian
> Bundy.
>
>  - Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>     Thanks
>>
>>     Bruce
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 5:51 AM Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On 10/09/2018 06:39 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 06:00:07PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>> > >> Discussion on this seems to have petered out.
>> > >>
>> > >> I checked and https://opensource.org/licenses/FPL-1.0.0 is unchanged,
>> > (I.E.
>> > >> starting with "Note: There is a license that is identical to the Free
>> > Public
>> > >> License 1.0.0 called the Zero Clause BSD License." but otherwise using
>> > the Free
>> > >> Public License name.)
>> > >>
>> > >> What's the next step in the process?
>> > >
>> > > I think I was the OSI board member you spoke to at LCA (though it was
>> > > two years ago, in Hobart). (Leaving aside the issue of graying hair, I
>> > > don't think of my hair being "black", possibly because I grew up
>> > > around a lot of people whose hair was darker, or closer to black, than
>> > > mine.)
>> >
>> > Yes, I dug up a blog entry that had your name in it after I wrote 
>> the first
>> > message. Hello.
>> >
>> > > Anyway: here are some of my thoughts on the matter.
>> > >
>> > > My understanding is that what you'd like to see is: (a) the OSI
>> > > license page for this license to give the 'official' name as Zero
>> > > Clause BSD rather than Free Public License 1.0.0; (b) the URL for this
>> > > page be presented as something like
>> > > https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD.
>> >
>> > That would be lovely, yes.
>> >
>> > > I assume you don't object to a
>> > > cross-referencing approach that would be the reverse of the current
>> > > situation, though I don't think we do anything like that for any other
>> > > license.
>> >
>> > I have no objection to mentioning that OSI once called it by another name,
>> > I'd
>> > just like the first hit when you google for '0BSD' to stop being your page
>> > saying it isn't.
>> >
>> > I'd like to clear up the perceived confusion about there being two
>> > licenses, and
>> > the impression that what wikipedia calls a
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_equivalent_license might have
>> > something to do with the FSF's "call it Free Software, not Open Source"
>> > campaign
>> > to promote copyleft.
>> >
>> > I have evidence this is negatively impacting the adoption of the license.
>> >
>> > > I think at this point we should primarily be looking at actual usage
>> > > of each license name in the real world. Which license name, FPL or
>> > > 0BSD, is in wider use? If 0BSD (or Zero Clause BSD) is a more widely
>> > > used name for more actual code, I believe OSI should recognize that as
>> > > the preferred name.
>> >
>> > The github thread I linked to
>> > (https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/issues/464) was titled
>> > "Possibly
>> > add 0BSD license". It was started by someone other than me, without my
>> > knowledge, using the 0BSD name. The _only_ objection to github doing so
>> > (which
>> > derailed the attempt) was the naming confusion. I was asked via email to
>> > comment
>> > on the naming confusing, which is how I found out about the thread.
>> >
>> > Christian Bundy, the person who submitted the license to OSI, was also
>> > asked
>> > about the naming confusion and his contributions to the thread 
>> included the
>> > quotes "we're comfortable using the 0BSD identifier on our license" and
>> > "we'll
>> > be happy to stand behind any decision that's made (the same way that we
>> > support
>> > SPDX in giving us the "0BSD" identifier)."
>> >
>> > I'm unaware of any real-world use of the "Free Public License" name.
>> > Google for
>> > "free public license" produced no relevant hits on the first 3 pages, but
>> > plenty
>> > of confusion with other licenses on the first page alone, including:
>> >
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aladdin_Free_Public_License
>> > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
>> >
>> > Meanwhile Android has shipped toybox ever since Android M, and I've been
>> > asked
>> > by multiple people about applying it to their own projects. Here are a
>> > couple
>> > projects using it I'd never heard of before I just googled for "0bsd" and
>> > looked
>> > at the first 2 pages of hits:
>> >
>> > https://nacho4d-nacho4d.blogspot.com/2016/08/license.html
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> https://git.janouch.name/p/sensei-raw-ctl/commit/5f4a442a96b3ccdef4f78be4790f09d1b7b995db
>> >
>> > In 2015 I was asked by Samsung to submit the toybox license to SPDX, and
>> > did so
>> > under the "Zero Clause BSD" name I'd used for it since 2013. The SPDX
>> > approval
>> > process had already concluded and assigned the "0BSD" short identifier for
>> > it
>> > before the license was ever submitted to OSI.
>> >
>> > Here's my original submission to SPDX:
>> >
>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/spdx/2015-June/000974.html
>> >
>> > Here's the timeline putting OSI's actions in context:
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2015-December/001574.html
>> >
>> > For more information, see the github thread.
>> >
>> > Rob
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > License-review mailing list
>> > License-review at lists.opensource.org
>> >
>> > 
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>> >
>>
>>
>> -- Bruce Perens K6BP - CEO, Legal Engineering
>> Standards committee chair, license review committee member, co-founder,
>> Open Source Initiative
>> President, Open Research Institute; Board Member, Fashion Freedom
>> Initiative.
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>