[License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 78, Issue 59

Richard Fontana rfontana at redhat.com
Fri May 31 20:27:06 UTC 2019 

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 6:44 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".

Sebastian, I think you were looking at Tom's hypothetical alteration
of the LBNL license, not the LBNL liense itself. The license text you
submitted says, in the "built-in CLA" section:

> 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 license the contributor grants is an unconditional one, broader
than the LBNL license itself. I believe Tom is indicating that if the
license said "to be used under the terms of this license" it would not
raise the policy concern relating to asymmetrical license grants by
upstream contributors (normally occurring in open source as a debate
over separate CLAs, but in your case occurring in the
downstream/outbound license itself).

Richard


> 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



-- 
Richard Fontana
Senior Commercial Counsel
Red Hat, Inc.

More information about the License-review mailing list