blob: 97f85e2713f4f50f5401f2dee249547667b7dcc4 [file] [log] [blame]
From - Wed Oct 17 13:27:51 2018
X-Account-Key: account1
X-UIDL: GmailId166832be205bc2bd
X-Mozilla-Status: 1013
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
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;; s=arc-20160816;
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=arc-20160816;
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1;;
spf=pass ( best guess record for domain of designates as permitted sender)
Return-Path: <>
Received: from ( [])
by with ESMTPS id 129-v6si18906639pfd.201.2018.
for <>
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Wed, 17 Oct 2018 10:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass ( best guess record for domain of designates as permitted sender) client-ip=;
spf=pass ( best guess record for domain of designates as permitted sender)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1])
by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w9HI1egQ039009
for <>; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 11:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <>
From: Kirk McKusick <>
To: Rob Landley <>
Subject: Re: License naming question.
X-URL: http://WWW.McKusick.COM/
Reply-To: Kirk McKusick <>
In-reply-to: <>
Comments: In-reply-to Rob Landley <>
message dated "Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:57:10 -0500."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
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
> To:
> From: Rob Landley <>
> 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:
> =
> =
> 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
> ( and we're making progress on
> getting android to build under android, the Bionic libc maintainer
> recently sent me a roadmap update about that:
> =
> =
> 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
> 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:
> =
> =
> 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:
> =
> =
> 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...
> =
> =
> 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