123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180 |
- From - Wed Oct 17 13:27:51 2018
- X-Account-Key: account1
- X-UIDL: GmailId166832be205bc2bd
- X-Mozilla-Status: 1013
- X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
- X-Mozilla-Keys:
- Delivered-To: rob@landley.net
- Received: by 2002:ab0:208c:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id r12csp943206uak;
- Wed, 17 Oct 2018 10:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
- X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61EHdCAKXqiC2g4VHKVIL9kgr4swWkJtL9r6jorwOeN6QWG09j9dd8vuBA2AqOxUrypnI88
- X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:16a4:: with SMTP id h33-v6mr26279849plh.3.1539798983448;
- Wed, 17 Oct 2018 10:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
- ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1539798983; cv=none;
- d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;
- b=E/rO76Tc0QzdNYVqa3mOrkhv21WxRyex6QvEcEw2ejkTXu3csi2hFDckupiXuJyBYi
- zXk7prvMPwpP229CvoeWCl723QCCDRFU0b1S/1Z7gD9I3gk/t6Vnp0U1pJ/oFhUaExlJ
- l2/HwgzW0eVnMQsJHKlzP8zNqJhOUFD+xI35NiRa9J1tH0BomncWOz7lTXlvaTED2Vdz
- ZHoFuv89BUKCkKGbfm4/O0KTNECK6rK1Db87M/rGCpUQpCQacVr29Lf3AWLQikDR62dB
- vCqIMCD3mvRcPPOo8VIN/xyQQ9J4OcBZ/jZ/zfxcbZc11fng8GNHlp33hCxuyKHUwbeT
- nOmw==
- ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;
- h=date:content-transfer-encoding:content-id:mime-version:comments
- :in-reply-to:reply-to:subject:to:from:message-id;
- bh=HpIGga40Wz3PXDOHP7PrAJqWHlOoA7xl5QvPk2tjJig=;
- b=JdV87WgS3oz/oa3fJSLdgU42ag+CKECK7OuT/DLvHfmwc2XtIMkx99zexEOi3S8DJp
- eaxLjf70GfCzWyq2fP11rUjemnTxW9R9efZEkZanvq36rbj7A+3/NmzvYPLwm8bihlke
- Gu8/FoVrE8ZANi252MKvejMVYsrYsyEJnO/vmiteVR5wD8mwHtYQnDXmwta6ZhH/ko+t
- uWXkHxOxs6y21CElD+40BvkIGGwFNd4FptjTA1T0rgw0PTUB/igdKvvwk1LotqbERJv5
- nhNHc47pJ4EU2o7G4yAwBBVETXQYYc8rl259VCKiSuGy0hEKGKweVieTEAe8V+NrZzd2
- UV7A==
- ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com;
- spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mckusick@mckusick.com designates 70.36.157.235 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mckusick@mckusick.com
- Return-Path: <mckusick@mckusick.com>
- Received: from chez.mckusick.com (chez.mckusick.com. [70.36.157.235])
- by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 129-v6si18906639pfd.201.2018.10.17.10.56.23
- for <rob@landley.net>
- (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
- Wed, 17 Oct 2018 10:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
- Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mckusick@mckusick.com designates 70.36.157.235 as permitted sender) client-ip=70.36.157.235;
- Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
- spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mckusick@mckusick.com designates 70.36.157.235 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mckusick@mckusick.com
- Received: from chez.mckusick.com (localhost [IPv6:::1])
- by chez.mckusick.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w9HI1egQ039009
- for <rob@landley.net>; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 11:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
- (envelope-from mckusick@mckusick.com)
- Message-Id: <201810171801.w9HI1egQ039009@chez.mckusick.com>
- From: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>
- To: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
- Subject: Re: License naming question.
- X-URL: http://WWW.McKusick.COM/
- Reply-To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>
- In-reply-to: <9bf40da7-afb3-d3d6-3759-d1566c99aa20@landley.net>
- Comments: In-reply-to Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
- message dated "Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:57:10 -0500."
- MIME-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
- Content-ID: <39007.1539799300.1@chez.mckusick.com>
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 11:01:40 -0700
- X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MISSING_MID,
- UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1
- X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on chez.mckusick.com
- > To: mckusick@mckusick.com
- > From: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
- > Subject: License naming question.
- > Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:57:10 -0500
- > =
- > Hi,
- > =
- > We spoke at Ohio Linuxfest back in 2013 (you attended my Rise and
- > Fall of Copyleft talk, and then we talked in the hallway afterwards).
- > =
- > I _think_ I told you about my plans to try to promote public domain
- > equivalent licensing, a concept which has a wikipedia page now:
- > =
- > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_equivalent_license
- > =
- > For toybox what I did was take the OpenBSD suggested template license
- > off their website and remove the half-sentence requiring people to
- > copy that specific license text into derived works, and the resulting
- > license made it past Google's lawyers! My toybox project has been
- > providing the command line for android since Marshmallow
- > (https://lwn.net/Articles/629362/) and we're making progress on
- > getting android to build under android, the Bionic libc maintainer
- > recently sent me a roadmap update about that:
- > =
- > https://github.com/landley/toybox/commit/92b359f00057
- > =
- > I called the resulting license "Zero Clause BSD" (by analogy with
- > "Creative Commons Zero" and the existing 4 clause, 3 clause, and 2
- > clause BSD licenses), and I even got SPDX approval for it in 2015
- > (because Samsung asked me to shortly after Google merged it into
- > AOSP, they'd been adding it aftermarket before then and having an
- > SPDX identifier for the license simplified their internal bureaucracy).
- > =
- > Then a couple months after SPDX approved it, somebody _else_ submitted
- > the same license to Eric Raymond's old Open Source Initiative using
- > "Free" in the name, as in Free Software Foundation. (A sadly loaded
- > term these days.)
- > =
- > I hadn't known they were still in the license approval business
- > (they stopped approving new licenses in... 2012? And I remember
- > them explicitly _rejecting_ CC0 saying public domain isn't a license,
- > which their FAQ still talks about at
- > https://opensource.org/faq#public-domain). But they approved the
- > toybox license under a different name, then asked SPDX to retroactively
- > change their name for it. (SPDX didn't, but OSI refused to admit
- > it made a mistake, even though they said they had a policy to keep
- > the names in sync. They hadn't done their homework.)
- > =
- > Now every time the license is considered for a new use, the confusion
- > OSI caused tends to derail things:
- > =
- > https://github.com/david-a-wheeler/spdx-tutorial/issues/1
- > =
- > When github itself was considering adding 0BSD to its license
- > pulldown (which would have been a big win), I was asked what I
- > thought of the naming confusion, and I wrote two long things on my
- > rationale with lots of links to earlier stuff, which you can read
- > here if you'd like:
- > =
- > https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/issues/464
- > =
- > Anyway, I recently decided to ask OSI to admit they made a mistake
- > and change their name for the license to match what SPDX did, and
- > there was unanimous approval...
- > =
- > http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.or=
- g/2018-September/003519.html
- > =
- > Until the same guy who was objecting last time showed up to continue
- > to object. He ignord the "who used it first" axis, and said he
- > wanted to know which name was used more today, and then when he
- > lost that argument he said he objects to calling something a BSD
- > license that isn't using Berkeley's original wording.
- > =
- > My question is: do you object to the name "Zero Clause BSD" for a
- > public domain equivalent license that's the OpenBSD suggested
- > template license with half a sentence removed?
- > =
- > If you want to stay out of this, I understand. I'm pretty sure I
- > asked you this in 2013 before I started pushing the name, and
- > wouldn't have if you'd objected then, but that was long ago and the
- > water under the bridge is dead...
- > =
- > Thanks for your time, sorry that took so long to explain. (And even
- > longer if you read the big long github choosealicense thread. :)
- > =
- > Rob
- Thanks for the through explanation of the situation.
- I have no objections to the name "Zero Clause BSD" for your license.
- I hope that you are successful in getting OSI to change their name
- for the license to match what SPDX did.
- Kirk McKusick
|