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

Tue May 28 19:21:20 UTC 2019

Hello. Sorry to say, yes I'd missed it. To answer:

DOE requires a specific notice about their funding and subsequent rights and need for their approval be added - see highlighted text

SOFTWARE NAME  Copyright (c) 201x, 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.

NOTICE.  This Software was developed under funding from the U.S. Department
of Energy and the U.S. Government consequently retains certain rights.  As
such, the U.S. Government has been granted for itself and others acting on
its behalf a paid-up, nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license in the
Software to reproduce, distribute copies to the public, prepare derivative
works, and perform publicly and display publicly, and to permit other to do
so.

****************************

*** License Agreement ***

SOFTWARE NAME  Copyright (c) 201x, 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.

****************************

-----Original Message-----
From: Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com> 
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 7:19 AM
To: license-review at lists.opensource.org; sainslie at lbl.gov
Subject: Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD (Sebastian Ainslie)

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?

Thanks,
Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com <mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com> 
www.chesteklegal.com <http://www.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 <mailto: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 <mailto:License-review at lists.opensource.org> 
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.open
> source.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190528/c56f65ff/attachment-0001.html>