[License-review] For Legacy Approval: OpenLDAP Public License

Tue Aug 13 23:15:50 UTC 2019

Smith, McCoy wrote:
> So the copyright file is a "list of conditions" and a "disclaimer"?
> 
> If that's the intent, I'm not sure that's consistent with the text used, so this license has some drafting/ambiguity issues, particularly since both clause 1 and 2 specifically reference "copyright statements and notices" which makes the use of "list of conditions" and "disclaimers to also reference copyright notice files redundant.

There may be some redundancy here, but I don't believe any of that counts as ambiguous. Also, the previous
version of this license was already OSI-approved in 2001, so what's the problem with re-listing it?

Examining the commit history of this file shows that the only substantive difference between the current
version and the previous version was changing the wording "of source code" to "in source form".

http://www.openldap.org/devel/gitweb.cgi?p=openldap.git;a=history;f=LICENSE;h=05ad7571e448b9d83ead5d4691274d9484574714;hb=HEAD

http://www.openldap.org/devel/gitweb.cgi?p=openldap.git;a=commitdiff;h=eb7ff29a0dbe8596530d2ec980920ca3472d1520

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Chu [mailto:hyc at openldap.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 12:50 PM
> To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>; Smith, McCoy <mccoy.smith at intel.com>
> Subject: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: OpenLDAP Public License
> 
> Smith, McCoy wrote:
>> What's the difference between:
>>
>> "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce ... this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer"
>>
>> and
>>
>> "Redistributions must contain a verbatim copy of this document"?
>>
>> Seems like the same obligation, recited twice using different language.
> 
> No, "this document" only means this LICENSE file, but clause #2 also requires reproducing the COPYRIGHT file. And individual files within the source tree have their own particular copyright statements, which clause #1 requires they reproduce as well.
>>
>> Also, are there any substantive differences between this license and BSD-3 clause?
> 
> My reading of the BSD-3 Clause indicates that there is only a single copyright owner and single copyright statement for the entire source tree, but that is not the case here.
> 
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: License-review 
>> [mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of 
>> Howard Chu
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 12:21 PM
>> To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
>> Subject: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: OpenLDAP Public License
>>
>> License text:
>> The OpenLDAP Public License
>>   Version 2.8, 17 August 2003
>>
>> Redistribution and use of this software and associated documentation ("Software"), with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
>>
>> 1. Redistributions in source form must retain copyright statements
>>    and notices,
>>
>> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce applicable copyright
>>    statements and notices, this list of conditions, and the following
>>    disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided
>>    with the distribution, and
>>
>> 3. Redistributions must contain a verbatim copy of this document.
>>
>> The OpenLDAP Foundation may revise this license from time to time.
>> Each revision is distinguished by a version number.  You may use this Software under terms of this license revision or under the terms of any subsequent revision of the license.
>>
>> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE OPENLDAP FOUNDATION AND ITS CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE OPENLDAP FOUNDATION, ITS CONTRIBUTORS, OR THE AUTHOR(S) OR OWNER(S) OF THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>>
>> The names of the authors and copyright holders must not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealing in this Software without specific, written prior permission.  Title to copyright in this Software shall at all times remain with copyright holders.
>>
>> OpenLDAP is a registered trademark of the OpenLDAP Foundation.
>>
>> Copyright 1999-2003 The OpenLDAP Foundation, Redwood City, California, USA.  All Rights Reserved.  Permission to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document is granted.
>>
>> ----------------
>>
>> Rationale:
>>
>> The OpenLDAP Public License has been in use since 1998, with this latest revision in 2003. Previous versions of the license were already OSI approved back in 2001.
>> https://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-announce/200206/msg00001.html
>> I am not aware of the circumstances why the license was de-listed.
>>
>> It is essentially a BSD 3-clause license. It is currently an FSF-approved license.
>>
>> ----------------
>>
>> Proliferation category:
>> Licenses that are redundant with more popular licenses (BSD 3-clause)

-- 
  -- Howard Chu
  CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
  Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/