[License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD
Sebastian Ainslie
sainslie at lbl.gov
Fri May 17 15:29:12 UTC 2019
All,
Thanks for looking at this. The reason for the added paragraph is the ability to accept contributions automatically without having to do a written and signed CLA for each one separately IF licensee wants to contribute back to the Lab. Tracking each contribution would be unmanageable across the Lab as we have so many projects on the go and neither the people nor resources to manage this licensing aspect.
Any other changes from ‘vanilla’ BSD are imposed upon us as we are a Federal Department of Energy National Lab (there are 17 DOE Labs across the country, all of them doing software projects).
We are looking for legacy approval in the Federal class.
Thanks
Sebastian
> On May 17, 2019, at 7:39 AM, license-review-request at lists.opensource.org wrote:
>
> Send License-review mailing list submissions to
> license-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> license-review-request at lists.opensource.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> license-review-owner at lists.opensource.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of License-review digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD (Kevin P. Fleming)
> 2. Re: For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD (Richard Fontana)
> 3. Re: For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD (Smith, McCoy)
> 4. Re: For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD (Richard Fontana)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 09:47:31 -0400
> From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kevin+osi at km6g.us>
> To: License submissions for OSI review
> <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD
> Message-ID:
> <CAE+Udoqg25GsCFUgQdNAtmgBJVjPMrigXCUW5j8xOgX70p=vGw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> The request is for "legacy" aprpoval, and if approved that will mean
> that usage of the license is discouraged, right?
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 6:36 AM Bruce Perens via License-review
> <license-review at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>>
>> I always appreciate your comments, John, but I'd like to hear from Sebastian this time. Is this important enough to have yet another license adding to the license proliferation problem?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 7:12 PM John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, I suppose because of the default copyleft. If you publish a derivative work and *don't* give it a specific license, it gets the LBNL BSD by default rather than the usual default, which is no-license.
>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 7:11 PM Bruce Perens via License-review <license-review at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why do they still need to use this rather than the plain BSD license?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Bruce
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2019, 16:33 Sebastian Ainslie <sainslie at lbl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The license:
>>>>>
>>>>> Copyright (c) XXXX, The Regents of the University of California, through
>>>>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (subject to receipt of any required
>>>>> approvals from the U.S. Dept. of Energy). All rights reserved.
>>>>> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>>>>> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
>>>>> this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>>>>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>>>>> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>>>>>
>>>>> (3) Neither the name of the University of California, Lawrence Berkeley
>>>>> National Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Energy nor the names of its contributors
>>>>> may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
>>>>> without specific prior written permission.
>>>>>
>>>>> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
>>>>> AND ANY EXPRESS 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 COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are under no obligation whatsoever to provide any bug fixes, patches, or
>>>>> upgrades to the features, functionality or performance of the source code
>>>>> ("Enhancements") to anyone; however, if you choose to make your Enhancements
>>>>> available either publicly, or directly to Lawrence Berkeley National
>>>>> Laboratory, without imposing a separate written license agreement for such
>>>>> Enhancements, then you hereby grant the following license: a non-exclusive,
>>>>> royalty-free perpetual license to install, use, modify, prepare derivative
>>>>> works, incorporate into other computer software, distribute, and sublicense
>>>>> such Enhancements or derivative works thereof, in binary and source code
>>>>> form.
>>>>> ---------------------------
>>>>> The rationale:
>>>>>
>>>>> The LBNL BSD has been in use since 2003. It has an ADDED paragraph at the
>>>>> end that makes it easier to accept improvements without a specific grant
>>>>> required.
>>>>> ---------------------------
>>>>> Early examples:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-LBNL.html
>>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:LBNLBSD
>>>>> ---------------------------
>>>>> Proliferation category:
>>>>>
>>>>> Special purpose - US Federal National Lab
>>>>> ---------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Sebastian Ainslie
>>>>>
>>>>> Principal Commercialization & Licensing Lead Intellectual Property Office
>>>>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>>>>> www: ipo.lbl.gov
>>>>> e mail: sainslie at lbl.gov
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> License-review mailing list
>>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 10:26:07 -0400
> From: Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com>
> To: License submissions for OSI review
> <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD
> Message-ID:
> <CAC1cPGyi75hAUiRrzzjzJObXER=PYW+nJTem0tVa7Mdq_5oYig at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> As I understand it, legacy approvals should not implicate the policy
> against license proliferation at all. The legacy approval mechanism
> seems to have been used sparingly but I think it would be a good idea
> for OSI to take a more active role in recognizing the open source
> status of legacy licenses that commonly appear in packages in
> community Linux distributions, which must number in the hundreds.
>
> The odd last paragraph should be paused over -- the notable feature is
> "if you choose to make your Enhancements available either publicly, or
> directly to Lawrence Berkeley National
> Laboratory, without imposing a separate written license agreement for
> such Enhancements", you grant a permissive license which is somewhat
> broader than the downstream BSD-style license. What annoys me about it
> is, probably due to careless drafting, that it does not appear to
> address the case of someone making apparently non-licensed
> Enhancements available directly (non-"publicly") to some person other
> than LBNL. It's also not clear whether the "separate written license
> agreement" would exclude this BSD-LBNL license itself. There have been
> a few license submissions in recent years that have tried to awkwardly
> shoehorn a CLA into the license and this license seems to have a
> similar character. In normal open source practice, modifications to a
> work are assumed to be under the same license as the original, but I
> don't know if this license is trying to assert that without some
> abnormally clear indication that this is the case, the person who
> makes such modifications available publicly is deemed to be granting
> the broader, unconditional license.
>
> This is different from Apache License 2.0 section 5, which tries to
> say that upstream contributions to the licensor are by default
> licensed under the Apache License 2.0, which just codifies the
> "inbound=outbound" understanding.
>
> Richard
>
>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 9:48 AM Kevin P. Fleming <kevin+osi at km6g.us> wrote:
>>
>> The request is for "legacy" aprpoval, and if approved that will mean
>> that usage of the license is discouraged, right?
>>
>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 6:36 AM Bruce Perens via License-review
>> <license-review at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I always appreciate your comments, John, but I'd like to hear from Sebastian this time. Is this important enough to have yet another license adding to the license proliferation problem?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 7:12 PM John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, I suppose because of the default copyleft. If you publish a derivative work and *don't* give it a specific license, it gets the LBNL BSD by default rather than the usual default, which is no-license.
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 7:11 PM Bruce Perens via License-review <license-review at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do they still need to use this rather than the plain BSD license?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruce
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2019, 16:33 Sebastian Ainslie <sainslie at lbl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The license:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Copyright (c) XXXX, The Regents of the University of California, through
>>>>>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (subject to receipt of any required
>>>>>> approvals from the U.S. Dept. of Energy). All rights reserved.
>>>>>> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>>>>>> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
>>>>>> this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>>>>>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>>>>>> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (3) Neither the name of the University of California, Lawrence Berkeley
>>>>>> National Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Energy nor the names of its contributors
>>>>>> may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
>>>>>> without specific prior written permission.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
>>>>>> AND ANY EXPRESS 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 COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are under no obligation whatsoever to provide any bug fixes, patches, or
>>>>>> upgrades to the features, functionality or performance of the source code
>>>>>> ("Enhancements") to anyone; however, if you choose to make your Enhancements
>>>>>> available either publicly, or directly to Lawrence Berkeley National
>>>>>> Laboratory, without imposing a separate written license agreement for such
>>>>>> Enhancements, then you hereby grant the following license: a non-exclusive,
>>>>>> royalty-free perpetual license to install, use, modify, prepare derivative
>>>>>> works, incorporate into other computer software, distribute, and sublicense
>>>>>> such Enhancements or derivative works thereof, in binary and source code
>>>>>> form.
>>>>>> ---------------------------
>>>>>> The rationale:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The LBNL BSD has been in use since 2003. It has an ADDED paragraph at the
>>>>>> end that makes it easier to accept improvements without a specific grant
>>>>>> required.
>>>>>> ---------------------------
>>>>>> Early examples:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-LBNL.html
>>>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:LBNLBSD
>>>>>> ---------------------------
>>>>>> Proliferation category:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Special purpose - US Federal National Lab
>>>>>> ---------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sebastian Ainslie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Principal Commercialization & Licensing Lead Intellectual Property Office
>>>>>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>>>>>> www: ipo.lbl.gov
>>>>>> e mail: sainslie at lbl.gov
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> License-review mailing list
>>>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 14:36:23 +0000
> From: "Smith, McCoy" <mccoy.smith at intel.com>
> To: License submissions for OSI review
> <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD
> Message-ID: <9AFE935D-AB97-4599-8A1A-3BE87228DC5B at intel.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
> I?m curious why, if this license has been used successfully for 16 years, OSI approval is needed at all? Has the lack of OSI approval suddenly resulted in prospective licensees declining to use code under this license?
>
> Also, I think generally OSI should discourage licenses with text that is specific to a particular entity or entities, which is the case with clause (3).
>
>> On May 17, 2019, at 6:48 AM, Kevin P. Fleming <kevin+osi at km6g.us> wrote:
>>
>> The request is for "legacy" aprpoval, and if approved that will mean
>> that usage of the license is discouraged, right?
>>
>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 6:36 AM Bruce Perens via License-review
>> <license-review at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I always appreciate your comments, John, but I'd like to hear from Sebastian this time. Is this important enough to have yet another license adding to the license proliferation problem?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 7:12 PM John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, I suppose because of the default copyleft. If you publish a derivative work and *don't* give it a specific license, it gets the LBNL BSD by default rather than the usual default, which is no-license.
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 7:11 PM Bruce Perens via License-review <license-review at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do they still need to use this rather than the plain BSD license?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruce
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2019, 16:33 Sebastian Ainslie <sainslie at lbl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The license:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Copyright (c) XXXX, The Regents of the University of California, through
>>>>>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (subject to receipt of any required
>>>>>> approvals from the U.S. Dept. of Energy). All rights reserved.
>>>>>> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>>>>>> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
>>>>>> this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>>>>>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>>>>>> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (3) Neither the name of the University of California, Lawrence Berkeley
>>>>>> National Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Energy nor the names of its contributors
>>>>>> may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
>>>>>> without specific prior written permission.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
>>>>>> AND ANY EXPRESS 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 COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are under no obligation whatsoever to provide any bug fixes, patches, or
>>>>>> upgrades to the features, functionality or performance of the source code
>>>>>> ("Enhancements") to anyone; however, if you choose to make your Enhancements
>>>>>> available either publicly, or directly to Lawrence Berkeley National
>>>>>> Laboratory, without imposing a separate written license agreement for such
>>>>>> Enhancements, then you hereby grant the following license: a non-exclusive,
>>>>>> royalty-free perpetual license to install, use, modify, prepare derivative
>>>>>> works, incorporate into other computer software, distribute, and sublicense
>>>>>> such Enhancements or derivative works thereof, in binary and source code
>>>>>> form.
>>>>>> ---------------------------
>>>>>> The rationale:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The LBNL BSD has been in use since 2003. It has an ADDED paragraph at the
>>>>>> end that makes it easier to accept improvements without a specific grant
>>>>>> required.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 10:38:16 -0400
> From: Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com>
> To: License submissions for OSI review
> <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD
> Message-ID:
> <CAC1cPGzLAM0G-DQTij9UzYH6-igycyBNKCLuXXnSvjZN-=tXgA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> A further thought on this. Legacy approvals must meet the same
> standard (OSD conformance and guarantee of software freedom) that
> non-legacy submissions are subject to. But I believe that in the
> legacy case we should be somewhat more forgiving about what may seem
> like relatively bad, informal or amateurish drafting, unless the
> license crosses some threshold of non-clarity. That's mainly because I
> believe we have higher standards around open-ish license drafting
> quality today than we had ~15 years ago, let alone 30 years ago or
> more. Not sure if anyone agrees with that, but it may be relevant when
> thinking about that tacked-on paragraph in the LBNL license.
>
> Richard
>
>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:26 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> As I understand it, legacy approvals should not implicate the policy
>> against license proliferation at all. The legacy approval mechanism
>> seems to have been used sparingly but I think it would be a good idea
>> for OSI to take a more active role in recognizing the open source
>> status of legacy licenses that commonly appear in packages in
>> community Linux distributions, which must number in the hundreds.
>>
>> The odd last paragraph should be paused over -- the notable feature is
>> "if you choose to make your Enhancements available either publicly, or
>> directly to Lawrence Berkeley National
>> Laboratory, without imposing a separate written license agreement for
>> such Enhancements", you grant a permissive license which is somewhat
>> broader than the downstream BSD-style license. What annoys me about it
>> is, probably due to careless drafting, that it does not appear to
>> address the case of someone making apparently non-licensed
>> Enhancements available directly (non-"publicly") to some person other
>> than LBNL. It's also not clear whether the "separate written license
>> agreement" would exclude this BSD-LBNL license itself. There have been
>> a few license submissions in recent years that have tried to awkwardly
>> shoehorn a CLA into the license and this license seems to have a
>> similar character. In normal open source practice, modifications to a
>> work are assumed to be under the same license as the original, but I
>> don't know if this license is trying to assert that without some
>> abnormally clear indication that this is the case, the person who
>> makes such modifications available publicly is deemed to be granting
>> the broader, unconditional license.
>>
>> This is different from Apache License 2.0 section 5, which tries to
>> say that upstream contributions to the licensor are by default
>> licensed under the Apache License 2.0, which just codifies the
>> "inbound=outbound" understanding.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 9:48 AM Kevin P. Fleming <kevin+osi at km6g.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> The request is for "legacy" aprpoval, and if approved that will mean
>>> that usage of the license is discouraged, right?
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 6:36 AM Bruce Perens via License-review
>>> <license-review at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I always appreciate your comments, John, but I'd like to hear from Sebastian this time. Is this important enough to have yet another license adding to the license proliferation problem?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Bruce
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 7:12 PM John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I suppose because of the default copyleft. If you publish a derivative work and *don't* give it a specific license, it gets the LBNL BSD by default rather than the usual default, which is no-license.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 7:11 PM Bruce Perens via License-review <license-review at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do they still need to use this rather than the plain BSD license?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bruce
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2019, 16:33 Sebastian Ainslie <sainslie at lbl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The license:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Copyright (c) XXXX, The Regents of the University of California, through
>>>>>>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (subject to receipt of any required
>>>>>>> approvals from the U.S. Dept. of Energy). All rights reserved.
>>>>>>> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>>>>>>> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (1) Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
>>>>>>> this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (2) Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>>>>>>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>>>>>>> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (3) Neither the name of the University of California, Lawrence Berkeley
>>>>>>> National Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Energy nor the names of its contributors
>>>>>>> may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
>>>>>>> without specific prior written permission.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
>>>>>>> AND ANY EXPRESS 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 COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are under no obligation whatsoever to provide any bug fixes, patches, or
>>>>>>> upgrades to the features, functionality or performance of the source code
>>>>>>> ("Enhancements") to anyone; however, if you choose to make your Enhancements
>>>>>>> available either publicly, or directly to Lawrence Berkeley National
>>>>>>> Laboratory, without imposing a separate written license agreement for such
>>>>>>> Enhancements, then you hereby grant the following license: a non-exclusive,
>>>>>>> royalty-free perpetual license to install, use, modify, prepare derivative
>>>>>>> works, incorporate into other computer software, distribute, and sublicense
>>>>>>> such Enhancements or derivative works thereof, in binary and source code
>>>>>>> form.
>>>>>>> ---------------------------
>>>>>>> The rationale:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The LBNL BSD has been in use since 2003. It has an ADDED paragraph at the
>>>>>>> end that makes it easier to accept improvements without a specific grant
>>>>>>> required.
>>>>>>> ---------------------------
>>>>>>> Early examples:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-LBNL.html
>>>>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:LBNLBSD
>>>>>>> ---------------------------
>>>>>>> Proliferation category:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Special purpose - US Federal National Lab
>>>>>>> ---------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sebastian Ainslie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Principal Commercialization & Licensing Lead Intellectual Property Office
>>>>>>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>>>>>>> www: ipo.lbl.gov
>>>>>>> e mail: sainslie at lbl.gov
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> License-review mailing list
>>>>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>>>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of License-review Digest, Vol 78, Issue 39
> **********************************************
More information about the License-review
mailing list