[License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD
Smith, McCoy
mccoy.smith at intel.com
Wed May 29 23:05:10 UTC 2019
Sebastian
The text you submitted does not say that
It grants a separate license to Enhancements without the attribution and license notice requirements of clauses 1 and 2 of BSD 3 clause
> On May 29, 2019, at 4:01 PM, Sebastian Ainslie <sainslie at lbl.gov> wrote:
>
> Hi - Re " It is confusing to me why you are assigning a different license
> for distributed Enhancements."
>
> I don't believe we are. It is under the same license. It reads "...then you
> hereby grant permission for your Enhancements TO BE USED UNDER THE TERMS OF
> THIS LICENSE".
> Please note: As this e mail is Basic Text format I have uppercased versus
> underlined the important verbiage for the purposes of illustration only.
>
> Thanks
>
> Sebastian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On Behalf
> Of license-review-request at lists.opensource.org
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 12:17 PM
> To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: License-review Digest, Vol 78, Issue 59
>
> 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: License-review Digest, Vol 78, Issue 56 (Tom Callaway)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 15:16:16 -0400
> From: Tom Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com>
> To: License submissions for OSI review
> <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 78, Issue 56
> Message-ID:
> <CANA0HMbV-YmZ-Y8tD4RAzD9YG-UvE0XOgLKeuHtYAz1bsjZR=g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> The question I have here (and the one that I believe some others have as
> well) is this:
>
> Why does the license grant text at the end of your license text assign
> _different_ terms from the actual BSD license?
>
> For example, if it read:
>
> 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 permission for your Enhancements to be used under the terms
> of this license.
>
> This would be clear, it is making explicit what is often implicit (that
> inbound changes on an existing work are under the same license as the
> original work unless otherwise specified).
>
> It is confusing to me why you are assigning a different license for
> distributed Enhancements.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Tom
>
>
>> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 3:07 PM Sebastian Ainslie <sainslie at lbl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> 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.openso
>>>>> ur 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.o
>>>> pe
>>>> n
>>>> source.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> License-review mailing list
>>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.op
>>> en source.org _______________________________________________
>>> License-review mailing list
>>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.op
>>> en
>>> source.org
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> 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/a
> ttachments/20190529/5c0378ac/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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 59
> **********************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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