[License-review] [External] Re: OSI License Submission - PPPL BSD-3

[J Lovejoy]

Hi all,

To clarify from the SPDX side a bit: I assume we are talking about this 
license: https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-LBNL.html

This was added to the SPDX License List as of version 1.20 (so a very, 
very long time ago, and likely as part of the initial alignment with 
licenses found in Fedoras "good" list at that time - figured you'd 
appreciate that detail, Richard!)

SPDX has always made it a goal to avoid changes to license ids, unless 
there are extenuating circumstances - which it does not sound like there 
are here.

As for the "tempatizing" - under SPDX Matching Guidelines (see 
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/DOCS/license-matching-guidelines-and-templates.md 
) the copyright notice at the top is... a copyright notice, thus not 
considered part of the license. We also have the concept of 
"replaceable" text to accommodate things like names in certain clauses, 
which do not make any substantive legal difference. You can see this 
instantiated in the xml markup of the license here 
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/src/BSD-3-Clause-LBNL.xml 
and noted by colored text on the website page.

If I understand the thread correctly - SPDX has already done what is 
being asked here insofar as allowing "matches".

Relatedly, I just happen to chat with McCoy about OSI adopting SPDX's 
matching guidelines, which would be a fanstastic step forward. As I said 
to McCoy, I would highly recommend the OSI reach out to SPDX-legal (via 
mailing list or contact myself and Steve Winslow directly) in order to 
have a more thorough discussion of areas of collaboration and to ensure 
a successful adoption of whatever makes sense for the OSI to leverage 
b/c... no point in reinventing the wheel!

Cheers,
Jilayne

On 10/23/25 11:39 AM, sainslie at lbl.gov wrote:
>
> Hi. Not a problem. Was in use a few years before my time at LBNL 
> (2015) and was used by LBNL first. If it becomes more generic 
> regarding the copyright of the entity using it that’s fine by me. It 
> would be nice if it could still be called the LBNL BSD as it is a 
> variant BSD first used and created by LBNL.
>
> Sebastian
>
> *From:*Chris Wright <cwright at pppl.gov>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2025 11:13 AM
> *To:* Josh Berkus <josh.berkus at opensource.org>; Sebastian Ainslie 
> <sainslie at lbl.gov>
> *Cc:* License submissions for OSI review 
> <license-review at lists.opensource.org>; Richard Fontana 
> <rfontana at redhat.com>; Will Rarich <wrarich at pppl.gov>; J Lovejoy 
> <opensource at jilayne.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [External] Re: [License-review] OSI License Submission 
> - PPPL BSD-3
>
> Excellent thank you Josh!
>
> I am copying Sebastian at LBNL for his awareness since the BSD-LBNL is 
> his license.
>
> Long story short Sebastian, we wanted a BSD-PPPL to copy yours, and 
> that turned into (rightly so) a discussion on a genericized BSD-LBNL 
> instead of a new copy with PPPL substituted throughout, and that 
> turned into just genericizing the existing listing on opensource.org 
> <http://opensource.org>. Hopefully that doesn't cause you any problems.
>
> Best,
>
> Chris
>
> Chris Wright
>
> Team Lead, Strategic Engagement and Applications Development
>
> Head of Technology Transfer
>
> Office: Room LSB134(609)-243-2425
>
> Mobile: (865)-696-6949
>
> Book a Meeting: https://calendly.com/cw20
>
> Visit us at https://innovation.pppl.gov/ <https://innovation.pppl.gov/>
>
> *Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory* is a U.S. Department of Energy 
> National Laboratory managed by Princeton University.
>
> Image removed by sender. PPPL
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 5:22 PM Josh Berkus 
> <josh.berkus at opensource.org> wrote:
>
>     On 10/22/25 9:21 AM, Chris Wright wrote:
>     > Thanks for discussing this with us. I don't actually mind the name
>     > remaining BSD-LBNL, I agree with Richard that sometimes the
>     historical
>     > aspect is actually a fun nomenclature to maintain. My reason for
>     > opening this discussion was instead that the text of the license
>     itself
>     > contains "Lawrence Berkeley National Lab" in several places,
>     which needs
>     > to be generalized to <COPYRIGHT HOLDER> or something like that.
>     And if
>     > LBNL wants to keep their version with their name specifically
>     included,
>     > then maybe we need a different name for the generic version. I
>     can talk
>     > to LBNL if that is helpful also.
>
>     That genericization update is happening soon, the Board just voted to
>     authorize it.
>
>     -- 
>     -- Josh Berkus
>     OSI Board Member
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20251023/a7f1292b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD0000.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20251023/a7f1292b/attachment.jpg>