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

Fri May 24 01:47:23 UTC 2019

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:24 PM Sebastian Ainslie <sainslie at lbl.gov> wrote:
>
> 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.

Why not use "vanilla" BSD with the DCO (https://developercertificate.org/)?

Or -- why not say in the license that published derivative works are
also licensed under vanilla BSD (why does LBNL need a license more
permissive than vanilla BSD)?

Richard

>
> -----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
> **********************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org