<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Carlo and Will,</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for noting the similarities to BSD-3-Clause-LBNL here. Sharing a couple of thoughts just from SPDX's perspective:</div><div><br></div><div>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].</div><div><br></div><div>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).</div><div><br></div><div>The only other differences I am seeing are:</div><div><br></div><div>* 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.</div><div>* 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. <a href="https://github.com/PrincetonUniversity/anarrima/blob/main/LICENSE">https://github.com/PrincetonUniversity/anarrima/blob/main/LICENSE</a></div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Steve</div><div><br></div><div>[1] <a href="https://spdx.org/licenses">https://spdx.org/licenses</a></div><div>[2] <a href="https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v3.0.1/annexes/license-matching-guidelines-and-templates/">https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v3.0.1/annexes/license-matching-guidelines-and-templates/</a></div><div>[3] <a href="https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-LBNL.html">https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-LBNL.html</a></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 9:38\u202fAM Carlo Piana wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><br><div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><div>Will,</div><div><br></div><div>thank you for your submission.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Have you considered the above?</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you very much.</div><div><br></div><div>Carlo</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><hr id="m_817285814820588701m_5464640670182059556zwchr"><div><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid rgb(16,16,255);margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><b>Da: </b>"Will Rarich via License-review" <<a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>><br><b>A: </b>"<a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>><br><b>Cc: </b>"Will Rarich" <<a href="mailto:wrarich@pppl.gov" target="_blank">wrarich@pppl.gov</a>><br><b>Inviato: </b>Mercoledì, 9 luglio 2025 18:25:54<br><b>Oggetto: </b>[License-review] OSI License Submission - PPPL BSD-3<br></blockquote></div><div><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid rgb(16,16,255);margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>Hello,</div><br><div>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 (<a href="https://opensource.org/license/bsd-3-clause-lbnl" target="_blank">https://opensource.org/license/bsd-3-clause-lbnl</a>) 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. </div><br><div>As it pertains to this review process, this license would be considered "new" as it has been in use for only a few months. </div><br><div>The attached PPPL BSD-3 License complies with the Open Source Definition, including clauses 3, 5, 6, and 9.</div><br><div>Anarrima (<a href="https://github.com/PrincetonUniversity/anarrima" target="_blank">https://github.com/PrincetonUniversity/anarrima</a>) has been made publicly available with the PPPL BSD-3 License, and several other PPPL-developed codes will be imminently open sourced with it. </div><br><div>The license steward is PPPL's Strategic Engagement and Applications Development office (<a href="mailto:SEAD@pppl.gov" target="_blank">SEAD@pppl.gov</a>). </div><br><div>The license name is Princeton Plasma Physics Lab BSD Variant License with the identifier BSD-3-Clause-PPPL.</div><br><div>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 <a href="https://www.osti.gov/doecode/" target="_blank">https://www.osti.gov/doecode/</a> the announcement requires the name and/or link to the OSS License. Having the PPPL version of the BSD-3-Clause-PPPL published on <a href="http://opensource.org" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> will reduce confusion by enabling links to the correct document. </div><br><div>It is most similar to LBNL's BSD-3 license (<a href="https://opensource.org/license/bsd-3-clause-lbnl" target="_blank">https://opensource.org/license/bsd-3-clause-lbnl</a>) with PPPL's name substituted throughout. </div><br><div>The license has not been through legal review. </div><br><div>I am happy to address any further questions or comments regarding this license. </div><br><div>Best,</div></div><br><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#666666">Will Rarich</font><div><span style="color:rgb(102,102,102)">Technology Transfer Specialist</span><br></div><div><font color="#666666"><a href="mailto:wrarich@pppl.gov" target="_blank">wrarich@pppl.gov</a></font><br></div><div><font color="#666666">Mobile: (908)-285-7143</font></div><div><font color="#666666">Visit us at <a href="https://innovation.pppl.gov/" target="_blank">https://innovation.pppl.gov/</a><br></font></div><div><div><font color="#666666"><b>Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory</b> is a U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory managed by Princeton University.</font></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><img alt="PPPL" width="96" height="53"></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>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 <a href="http://opensource.org" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> email address.<br><br>License-review mailing list<br><a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br></blockquote></div></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
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 <a href="http://opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> email address.<br>
<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>