[License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD

Pamela Chestek pamela at chesteklegal.com
Sat May 18 03:52:24 UTC 2019

On 5/17/19 10:26 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> 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.
Wouldn't it just default to whatever the default is for BSD

And isn't the concern erased because it's all conditional anyway, "/if/
you choose to make your Enhancements available ... without imposing a
separate written agreement ..." then the license-in applies? But there
is a mechanism for avoiding the grant by providing a separate written


Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190517/7b808f5b/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list