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

[Christoph Dorn]

On October 16, 2018 09:15:17 am PDT, "Rob Landley" <rob at landley.net> wrote:

> On 10/15/2018 04:02 PM, Christoph Dorn wrote:> You can look at this from two
> perspectives:
>>
>> 2) The FPL name is better to newcomers since the name implies 
>> meaning without
>> needing the history. IMO this name is nicer for newcomers.
>
> Do you mean the part where googling for "free public license" brought 
> up 3 other
> completely unrelated licenses on the first page, or the part where:
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=free+software+vs+open+source
>
> is another well-established cultural divide giving the word "free" 
> very specific
> connotations?

Irrespective of prior use and without reading into the term "free" I 
simply meant that it implies "you are free to do what you want".


>> 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.
>
> OSI is _already_ calling it both. That's what's poisoning the google search
> results for 0bsd.

I don't consider google search result ranking as a criteria although it 
is nice that 0BSD stands as its own unique term.


>> I was planning on using the FPL name extensively
>
> Do you think it's a good _license_, or do you mean specifically the _name_
> regardless of the contents of the license?

Both.

I want to get as close to "public domain" as possible (given that it is 
heavily argued that you cannot really release into the public domain 
and should use a license instead).

0BSD heaving meaning in the corporate world is valuable. But would the 
same license text under a different name not benefit similarly if one 
can state that is is "0BSD equivalent"?

Call it "Public Domain License" which is even better than FPL.

The key IMO is to start fresh in approaching the "public domain 
problem" and build a new community around a historyless name. I 
understand you are trying to do that with "0BSD".


> So... were you planning on writing extensive amounts of _software_ 
> using it, or
> is this some sort of marketing campaign you're just now announcing?

Not sure what you mean. I am not announcing anything. I write software 
and use other people's software and am looking for a sound licensing 
strategy that makes adoption and redistribution seamless.


> (Do you give
> talks like
> https://archive.org/download/OhioLinuxfest2013/24-Rob_Landley-The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Copyleft.mp3,
> have you been using the license publicly for 5 years and got it merged into
> every Android system since M...?)

No. Just a dumb software author who is looking to naively steer clear 
of all the history.


>> as I am trying to reach a younger audience
>
> I'm trying to do that, _and_ convince corporations to approve the use 
> of what is
> functionally equivalent to public domain code, something the OSI's

That is why I like the 0BSD/FPL license: essential public domain equivalency.


>> that may not be familiar with the backstory of the BSD license.
> I'm not familiar with your backstory, but the website you're writing
<snip>
> In this context, I'm guessing you mean "marketing campaign".

My backstory is irrelevant. My intent can be construed however one sees fit.

I want a license that allows my users to do what they want with minimal 
compliance burden.

I see public domain equivalence as the answer to this.


>> I don't mean to complicate this decision nor go against the well-crafted
>> argument to rename to 0BSD.
>
> So the purpose of your message was...?
>
>> Just want to point out the two perspectives.

To provide a perspective that ignores the history of the 0BSD 
name/license as IMO young users would find the FPL name more meaningful 
at face value and it avoids bringing up the BSD clause backstory when 
just looking at the name of the license.

I am only raising that I prefer FPL over 0BSD because OSI has made FPL 
available as a recognized license and stated it is equivalent to 0BSD. 
If that was never done I would be using the license under the 0BSD name 
and wait for a "nicer" named license to represent the public domain. As 
naive and trivial as that may be we all have our preferences.


>> My reasons for using FPL over MIT (maybe I am misguided):
<snip>
>>   * It is not branded. I don't want to promote the Massachusetts 
>> Institute of
>> Technology name.
>
> Out of curiosity, what do you call "Linux"?

MIT is a corporate entity brand that stands for much more than just the 
MIT license. Given the choice I would prefer to promote a brand 
dedicated to a license. e.g. FPL


>>   * It is shorter and to the point.
>
> The license text is short and to the point, yes. Not as short as the John the
> Ripper license:

That license is not recognized by the OSI and the name is unfortunate.


> Getting SPDX to fix that is on my todo list, but you see how long 
> it's taken me
> to poke _you_ guys about this...

I am just a lurker with a personal opinion. IIRC you got my first post 
to this list.


> There's a lot of subtlety and backstory here that OSI is completely 
> deaf to, but
> sure, let's re-litigate all of it where you guys can see it.

I am going to stay out of that discussion as I am totally unqualified.

Christoph