[License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 78, Issue 56
Smith, McCoy
mccoy.smith at intel.com
Wed May 29 19:28:15 UTC 2019
Query to the lawyers* on the list:
Is the statement "(subject to receipt of any required approvals from the U.S. Dept. of Energy)" a condition of (or even a part of) the license? If so, does that violate OSD 7?
*Actually, everyone. But I'm interested in lawyers who might have confronted a license interpretation issue like this.
-----Original Message-----
From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Sebastian Ainslie
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 12:06 PM
To: 'Pamela Chestek' <pamela.chestek at opensource.org>; license-review at lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 78, Issue 56
As originally submitted - sorry for the confusion, I was just trying to answer the questions - Sebastian Original submission follows:
------------------------
The license:
Copyright (c) XXXX, 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.
---------------------------
The rationale:
The LBNL BSD has been in use since 2003. It has an ADDED paragraph at the end that makes it easier to accept improvements without a specific grant required.
---------------------------
Early examples:
https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-LBNL.html
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:LBNLBSD
---------------------------
Proliferation category:
Special purpose - US Federal National Lab
---------------------------
Kind regards
Sebastian Ainslie
-----Original Message-----
From: Pamela Chestek <pamela.chestek at opensource.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 11:55 AM
To: license-review at lists.opensource.org; sainslie at lbl.gov
Subject: Re: [License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 78, Issue 56
We need to have the full text for which approval is sought. The original submission started with "The license: Copyright (c) XXXX ...," which is the document we were reviewing.[^1] A later email changed the text in minor ways (e.g., added a heading "*** License Agreement ***", and "SOFTWARE NAME" wasn't in the original document), plus added content above a line of asterisks,[^2] but I don't know if that is part of the license text that is associated with the software. I assume it is; Sebastian said "DOE requires a specific notice about their funding and subsequent rights and need for their approval be added."
So what exactly is the document that we are approving?
Thanks,
Pam
[^1]:
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-May/004169.html
[^2]:
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-May/004218.html
Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Review Committee
Open Source Initiative
On 5/28/2019 5:49 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> Pam:
> The highlighted part in the license text ["(subject to receipt of any required approvals from the U.S. Dept. of Energy)"] *was* in the original submission. The part above the license text (what I called the copyright notice) wasn't.
> I don't think the copyright notice is (or should be) part of the license, but I guess the submitter gets to choose what they want approved.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-review
> [mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of
> Pamela Chestek
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 2:43 PM
> To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 78, Issue 56
>
> Now I'm confused too. You say you are not modifying anything, except that the text that you highlighted, and that McCoy was commenting on, isn't in the license you originally submitted. Can you submit the full correct text of the license you want approved?
>
> Pam
>
> Pamela Chestek
> Chair, License Review Committee
> Open Source Initiative
>
>
> On 5/28/2019 3:50 PM, Sebastian Ainslie wrote:
> I am not modifying anything. This is how it’s been used for over a decade.
>> Looking for legacy approval as it’s been used for so long here. If OSI approval going forward is more expedient then that will suffice.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Sebastian
>>
>>> On May 28, 2019, at 12:37 PM, license-review-request at lists.opensource.org wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.op
>>> e
>>> nsource.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 (Sebastian Ainslie)
>>> (Smith, McCoy)
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> -
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 19:36:25 +0000
>>> From: "Smith, McCoy" <mccoy.smith at intel.com>
>>> To: License submissions for OSI review
>>> <license-review at lists.opensource.org>, 'Pamela Chestek'
>>> <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD (Sebastian
>>> Ainslie)
>>> Message-ID:
>>>
>>> <2D52F7EE739F8542A700CAB96276B5198B159114 at fmsmsx117.amr.corp.intel.c
>>> o
>>> m>
>>>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>
>>>>> :From: License-review
>>>>> [mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of
>>>>> Sebastian Ainslie
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 12:21 PM
>>>>> To: 'Pamela Chestek' <pamela at chesteklegal.com>;
>>>>> license-review at lists.opensource.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD
>>>>> (Sebastian Ainslie)
>>> I?m now confused. You were asking for legacy approval for a license that had been used for over a decade, but seem to be now modifying it. Is this a legacy approval or a new license approval?
>>>
>>>>> DOE requires a specific notice about their funding and subsequent
>>>>> rights and need for their approval be added - see highlighted text
>>> Is the funding notification part of the license you?re asking for approval on? It seems the notice below is merely part of the copyright notice, not the license.
>>>
>>> With regard to the statement of approvals added to the license text, is that not an indication that without DOE approval, the license is void or revoked? That seems to create OSD 7 issues.
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
>>> scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>>> <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensour
>>> c e.org/attachments/20190528/d2b28ac6/attachment.html>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> License-review mailing list
>>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.op
>>> e
>>> nsource.org
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> End of License-review Digest, Vol 78, Issue 56
>>> **********************************************
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.ope
>> n
>> source.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.open
> source.org _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.open
> source.org
_______________________________________________
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