[License-review] OSI License Submission - PPPL BSD-3
McCoy Smith
mccoy at lexpan.law
Wed Oct 22 15:50:52 UTC 2025
I don't think OSI is proposing to rename this license (the PPPL one; the
LBNL one is already approved under its current and historical name). I
think the idea here is that PPPL doesn't need a separate approval or
entry (by OSI) as it is really just LBNL with a different author name.
And thus would fall within the existing approval of LBNL if OSI were to
adopt the "replaceable language" schema of SPDX (which I think it should).
GIven that LBNL is already approved under that name (and has an SPDX
identifier under that name) I don't think anyone ought to be renaming it
(even if it is just in metadata).
On 10/22/2025 6:35 AM, Richard Fontana via License-review wrote:
> If I understand correctly, the objection is actually to use of an SPDX
> identifier that refers to `LBNL`. I would say you should raise this
> with the SPDX legal team and that this is not an OSI issue. (cc'ing
> Jilayne Lovejoy who's on the SPDX legal team)
>
> I suppose OSI could rename "Lawrence Berkeley National Labs BSD
> Variant License" to something more generic but I don't think that
> would guarantee that SPDX would follow suit with its corresponding
> identifier.
>
> But it seems somewhat akin to a project complaining about using
> `Apache-2.0` or `GPL-2.0-or-later` because the project is not
> affiliated with the Apache Software Foundation or the GNU project,
> respectively. It's an arguably charming feature of open source that
> licenses often have names with historical associations that refer to
> particular licensors -- indeed this is of course also true of "BSD".
> Especially on the SPDX identifier side, or in cases where an SPDX
> identifier is assigned before a license gets OSI-approved (possibly
> relevant to `BSD-3-Clause-LBNL`?), the problem is that sometimes the
> SPDX identifier has what I'd argue is the "wrong" historical
> association, in the sense that the license in question originated with
> some earlier licensor/author/copyright holder, though I don't know if
> that's relevant in this case.
>
> Richard
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 8:14 AM Will Rarich via License-review
> <license-review at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to follow up on this discussion from earlier this year
> regarding a genericization of the BSD-3-LBNL entry on the OSI site
> into one that can be adapted to any DOE National Laboratory. We
> would like to have an OSI link to refer to this preferred license,
> particularly within the metadata of open source software listed in
> DOE CODE <https://www.osti.gov/doecode/biblio/12565>. A
> "BSD-3-DOE" would be more appropriate than the version naming LBNL.
>
> Please let me know if there's any other information PPPL can
> provide to justify this request.
>
> 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.
> PPPL
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 1:00 PM Will Rarich <wrarich at pppl.gov> wrote:
>
> Carlo,
>
> Thank you for your comments. Apologies for any confusion
> around the "claiming copyright" concept we mentioned in the
> request, it is just required in our government reporting
> obligations that we cite a published OSS license.
>
> Josh's suggestion to genericize the language in the BSD-LBNL
> on the OSI site is probably the ideal solution for us and
> other DOE labs. We only submitted this request because citing
> that version could be confusing, since it contains the
> specific name of the Lab.
>
> 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.
> PPPL
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 9:36 AM Carlo Piana <carlo at piana.eu>
> 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
> <http://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.
> 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
> <http://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 <http://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/20251022/5357ecb5/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the License-review
mailing list