[License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 78, Issue 44

Thu May 23 17:23:45 UTC 2019

Sorry in response to your question:

> I'm not following this reasoning. The language accomplishes that 
> whether or not it is approved as an open source license.

Agreed. It does that's why it was added (in 2003 I believe) as the 'vanilla'
BSD is silent on the issue. We wish this modified BSD to be considered OSS
'officially' much like the other Federal licenses are eg. The NASA one.

Sebastian

-----Original Message-----
From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On Behalf
Of license-review-request at lists.opensource.org
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 5:00 AM
To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
Subject: License-review Digest, Vol 78, Issue 44

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 (Pamela Chestek)
   2. Re: For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD (Pamela Chestek)
   3. Re: For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD (Brendan Hickey)
   4. Re: For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD (Henrik Ingo)
   5. Re: For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD (Sebastian Ainslie)
      (Smith, McCoy)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 08:38:50 -0400
From: Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD
Message-ID: <2752601e-f349-12d5-cecd-2e7f84b4f65c at chesteklegal.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Sebastian,

Perhaps you missed my question below?

Thanks,

Pam

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

On 5/17/19 11:42 PM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
> On 5/17/19 11:29 AM, Sebastian Ainslie wrote:
>> 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. 
> I'm not following this reasoning. The language accomplishes that 
> whether or not it is approved as an open source license.
>
> Pam
>
>
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PO Box 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602
> +1 919-800-8033
> pamela at chesteklegal.com
> www.chesteklegal.com

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 08:39:09 -0400
From: Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD
Message-ID: <d787f5f0-4250-1da8-41e0-63ef7b312271 at chesteklegal.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

And also this question?

Pam

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

On 5/17/19 11:54 PM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
> On 5/17/19 11:29 AM, Sebastian Ainslie wrote:
>> 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).
> Sorry I don't know this, but can you point out the document(s) that 
> impose the changes?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pam
>
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PO Box 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602
> +1 919-800-8033
> pamela at chesteklegal.com
> www.chesteklegal.com

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 10:10:32 -0400
From: Brendan Hickey <brendan.m.hickey at gmail.com>
To: henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi,  License submissions for OSI review
	<license-review at lists.opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD
Message-ID:
	<CAJ-h4vswSkrmj2auQgGvC-aS30qHh8Cw9OiFpwxSJXRVVma66Q at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On Wed, May 22, 2019, 05:14 Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi> wrote:

>
> 2. License-as-contributor-agreement - [snip] when I add code to a git 
> repo that has a BSD license, the code becomes also BSD licensed. This 
> seems to me more like a clarification for use cases such as emailing a 
> standalone patch without specifying a license.
>

Does this actually happen or is this the outcome that we want? Linux uses
the signed-off line in Git. On most rust repositories you'll see a language
to the effect that intentionally submitted code is Apache2 licensed.

During discussion of the C-FSL, someone pointed out that licenses are
insufficient for copyright assignment. What degree of affirmation do we
actually need from a submitter and can this be encapsulated in license
terms?

I agree with Pamela that the DOE guidance on this issue would be
illuminating.

Brendan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/a
ttachments/20190522/f2d0482c/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 17:21:43 +0300
From: Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi>
To: Brendan Hickey <brendan.m.hickey at gmail.com>
Cc: License submissions for OSI review
	<license-review at lists.opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD
Message-ID:
	<CAKHykesM_7rh1WCgDbYVgPrFpWw4FrLfNfyKE9juL0ZgC7SJfg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 5:10 PM Brendan Hickey <brendan.m.hickey at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019, 05:14 Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 2. License-as-contributor-agreement - [snip] when I add code to a git 
>> repo that has a BSD license, the code becomes also BSD licensed. This 
>> seems to me more like a clarification for use cases such as emailing 
>> a standalone patch without specifying a license.
>
>
> Does this actually happen or is this the outcome that we want? Linux uses
the signed-off line in Git. On most rust repositories you'll see a language
to the effect that intentionally submitted code is Apache2 licensed.
>

Consider this typical workflow:
- I clone a git repository to my laptop
- repository has a LICENSE file that is the BSD
- I add my own code to some files. The file headers also say the license is
BSD.
- I push my repo to github

Clearly I have now published my own code under LICENSE. (Not disagreeing
that a signed-off line is better, but clearly that's a minority of the
population.)

> During discussion of the C-FSL, someone pointed out that licenses are
insufficient for copyright assignment.

Correct. In above example, I have released my software under a license, but
have not assigned my copyright to anyone else.

henrik
--
henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi
+358-40-5697354        skype: henrik.ingo            irc: hingo
www.openlife.cc

My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 15:35:14 +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 (Sebastian
	Ainslie)
Message-ID:

<2D52F7EE739F8542A700CAB96276B5198B14B0B8 at fmsmsx117.amr.corp.intel.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>>From: License-review 
>>[mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of 
>>Sebastian Ainslie
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 2:57 PM
>>To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD (Sebastian 
>>Ainslie)

>>Note that as we are Dept of Energy (DOE) funded we cannot use the verbatim
BSD as DOE requires us to make certain slight modifications therein anyway.

Other than the addition of the name LBNL in the copyright statement and the
non-endorsement clause, and the tacked on default contribution license, this
looks identical to BSD.  Which of those parts are required by DOE funding?
Note that the OSI-approved modified 3-clause BSD does not specify any
particular copyright holder or non-endorsee:
https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

------------------------------

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 44
**********************************************