[License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD (Sebastian Ainslie)

Pamela Chestek pamela at chesteklegal.com
Mon May 27 14:18:57 UTC 2019

Hi Sebastian,

McCoy and I have both asked the same question but you haven't responded
- I'm assuming because you get the digest and the question slipped
through. You said "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)." Can
you elaborate more on what those regulations are or say?


Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
pamela at chesteklegal.com

On 5/22/2019 11:35 AM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org

More information about the License-review mailing list