[License-review] OSI License Submission - PPPL BSD-3

[Steve Winslow]

Hi Carlo and Will,

Thanks for noting the similarities to BSD-3-Clause-LBNL here. Sharing a
couple of thoughts just from SPDX's perspective:

Agreed that we would not add a separate entry on the SPDX License List [1]
when the only differences to an existing license are immaterial under the
SPDX license matching guidelines [2].

Running a comparison of the differences between the BSD-3-Clause-PPPL text
file submitted in this thread, and the existing BSD-3-Clause-LBNL already
on the SPDX License List [3], almost all of the changes are portions tagged
on the SPDX page as "omittable" (blue text) or "replaceable" (red text).

The only other differences I am seeing are:

* different capitalization in a couple of words ('Contributors' in clause
3; 'Enhancements' in the final sentence). SPDX treats capitalization as
irrelevant for matching purposes under the matching guidelines.
* missing parens around the defined term "Enhancements" in the final
paragraph. This would be different for SPDX purposes, but would be handled
by adding markup to -LBNL to make the parens optional. FWIW, also looks
like it might be a typo in the version that was submitted vs. the version
in use at e.g.
https://github.com/PrincetonUniversity/anarrima/blob/main/LICENSE

So to the extent it's helpful for OSI's review purposes, I'd say that on
the SPDX License List side we would view this as substantively equivalent
to BSD-3-Clause-LBNL.

Best,
Steve

[1] https://spdx.org/licenses
[2]
https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v3.0.1/annexes/license-matching-guidelines-and-templates/
[3] https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-LBNL.html

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 9:38 AM Carlo Piana wrote:

>
> Will,
>
> thank you for your submission.
>
> If I understand correctly, the main reason for creating a new license and
> submit it as an approved license is to permit attribution of copyright? I
> am rather opposed to have this kind of licenses approved, since the BSD
> license has a placeholder and any name slotted in is by definition approved
> and this one, if I understand it correctly, does not bring any difference
> but the name, so it's the same license.
>
> Despite it not being necessarily an issue of proliferation, giving it a
> different name when it's actually the same license, creates unnecessary
> friction, clogs the namespace and creates a lot of issues in automated
> license compatibility resolution, especially if it's given a separate SPDX
> identifier.
>
> Besides, it is not the license the right place to claim copyright. In
> source code there are standards like SPDX and REUSE and that one is the
> (machine readable) way. In object code there are numerous ways too.
>
> Have you considered the above?
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Carlo
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Da: *"Will Rarich via License-review" <
> license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> *A: *"license-review at lists.opensource.org" <
> license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> *Cc: *"Will Rarich" <wrarich at pppl.gov>
> *Inviato: *Mercoledì, 9 luglio 2025 18:25:54
> *Oggetto: *[License-review] OSI License Submission - PPPL BSD-3
>
> Hello,
>
> I work in the tech transfer office at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
> (PPPL), a DOE National Laboratory, and I have recently taken up a
> stewardship role over the lab's software portfolio. I am in the process of
> ensuring we are compliant with our contractual obligations to the DOE in
> how we obtain permission to copyright software, so there are a number of
> "legacy" codes at the lab being open sourced in addition to anything newly
> authored by our developers. My colleague Chris Wright has prepared a
> preferred license for this process, a variant of Lawrence Berkeley National
> Lab's BSD-3 license (https://opensource.org/license/bsd-3-clause-lbnl)
> with PPPL's name substituted. We would like to have our license officially
> approved by OSI to encourage its use when our developers decide to open
> source through our office.
>
> As it pertains to this review process, this license would be considered
> "new" as it has been in use for only a few months.
>
> The attached PPPL BSD-3 License complies with the Open Source Definition,
> including clauses 3, 5, 6, and 9.
>
> Anarrima (https://github.com/PrincetonUniversity/anarrima) has been made
> publicly available with the PPPL BSD-3 License, and several other
> PPPL-developed codes will be imminently open sourced with it.
>
> The license steward is PPPL's Strategic Engagement and Applications
> Development office (SEAD at pppl.gov).
>
> The license name is Princeton Plasma Physics Lab BSD Variant License with
> the identifier BSD-3-Clause-PPPL.
>
> The gap filled by this additional license is PPPL's ability to assert
> copyright on software authored by its staff and affiliates. When DOE-funded
> software announcements are made in accordance with our government contract
> at https://www.osti.gov/doecode/ the announcement requires the name
> and/or link to the OSS License. Having the PPPL version of the
> BSD-3-Clause-PPPL published on opensource.org will reduce confusion by
> enabling links to the correct document.
>
> It is most similar to LBNL's BSD-3 license (
> https://opensource.org/license/bsd-3-clause-lbnl) with PPPL's name
> substituted throughout.
>
> The license has not been through legal review.
>
> I am happy to address any further questions or comments regarding this
> license.
>
> Best,
>
> Will Rarich
> Technology Transfer Specialist
> wrarich at pppl.gov
> Mobile: (908)-285-7143
> Visit us at https://innovation.pppl.gov/
> *Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory* is a U.S. Department of Energy
> National Laboratory managed by Princeton University.
> [image: PPPL]
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20250718/918eddde/attachment-0001.htm>