Simplified BSD license

[Dag-Erling Smørgrav-2]

After a brief back-and-forth with the board, here is my formal
application for the simplified BSD license:

1) The proposed title for the license is "Simplified BSD license".

2) The text of the license is reproduced below, and an HTML version is
   available at <URL:http://www.des.no/simplified-bsd-license.html>

3) The license is derived from the (revised) BSD license, with the
   no-endorsement clause removed, leaving only the attribution-in-source
   and attribution-with-binary clauses.

   Note that the text I submit here is slightly different from the text
   in my original email to the OSI board: that version included the
   words "in this position and unchanged" at the end of the attribution-
   in-source clause.  I have no idea where I picked up those words, as
   they are not present in the original BSD license, nor in the FreeBSD
   or OpenBSD licenses.

4) The advantage of this license over the full BSD license is that it is
   unambiguously compatible with the GPL, as the no-endorsement clause
   could be regarded as a "further restriction on the recipients'
   exercise of rights" preventing BSD-licensed software from being
   combined with GPL software.

   Removing the no-endorsement clause also circumvents the entire
   discussion of where to draw the line between a statement of fact and
   an endorsement ("our software is derived from the Foobar package,
   which was developed by the Frobozz Institute", or "our software is
   derived from the award-winning Foobar package, which was developed by
   Nobel laureate, the Frobozz Institute"?)

   Finally, for many Open Source developers, the no-endorsement clause
   is pure nonsense - we would *love* to be held in such high regard
   that our name is used as a stamp of quality for software derived from
   ours.

Copyright (c) <YEAR> <OWNER>
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
   documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN
ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Senior Software Developer
Linpro AS - www.linpro.no

[Matthew Flaschen]

Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> 3) The license is derived from the (revised) BSD license, with the
>    no-endorsement clause removed, leaving only the attribution-in-source
>    and attribution-with-binary clauses.

Can't you just use the MIT license
(http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php)?  That doesn't have the
endorsements clause.  I really don't see a /need/ for this license.

> 4) The advantage of this license over the full BSD license is that it is
>    unambiguously compatible with the GPL, as the no-endorsement clause
>    could be regarded as a "further restriction on the recipients'
>    exercise of rights" preventing BSD-licensed software from being
>    combined with GPL software.

Maybe... but the FSF doesn't think so
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses).  They
find the New BSD fully compatible with the GPL.  And claiming a real
endorsement where there clearly wasn't one would probably be some kind
of fraud.  So it's not a real issue.

Matt Flaschen

[Dag-Erling Smørgrav-2]

Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen@...> writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@...> writes:
> > 3) The license is derived from the (revised) BSD license, with the
> >    no-endorsement clause removed, leaving only the attribution-in-source
> >    and attribution-with-binary clauses.
> Can't you just use the MIT license?  That doesn't have the
> endorsements clause.  I really don't see a /need/ for this license.

Nonetheless, it is widely used, and I can't quite see myself asking
{Free,Net,Open}BSD to replace their license with the MIT license.

DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Senior Software Developer
Linpro AS - www.linpro.no

[Chuck Swiger]

On Jun 4, 2007, at 5:53 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> After a brief back-and-forth with the board, here is my formal
> application for the simplified BSD license:
>
> 1) The proposed title for the license is "Simplified BSD license".
[ ... ]

The proposed license is obviously compliant with the Open Source  
definition; to me, the only real question is whether the simplified  
BSDL is actually different from the already-approved "new" or  
"modified" BSDL for a separate approval for the simplified BSDL to be  
meaningful.

If you check here:

     http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

...note that they've included the 1999 statement from UCal/Berkeley  
stating that clause 3 is "hereby deleted in its entirety."  That  
seems to suggest that the OSI board already recognizes both the  
original 3-clause BSDL as well as the 2-clause BSDL you've called the  
"Simplified BSD license".

--
-Chuck

PS: In point of fact, the last time I checked the sources for  
something like BSD's libc, there were upwards of thirty minor  
variants of the BSD license text present.

[John Cowan]

Chuck Swiger scripsit:

> If you check here:
>
>     http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
>
> ...note that they've included the 1999 statement from UCal/Berkeley  
> stating that clause 3 is "hereby deleted in its entirety."  

That refers to clause 3 of the original or 4-clause BSD, the "obnoxious"
required-advertising clause, which made it incompatible (according to
the FSF) with the GPL:

      * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
      *    must display the following acknowledgement:
      *    This product includes software developed by the University of
      *    California, Berkeley and its contributors.

Anything licensed by UCB itself under the 4-clause BSD is now as if
it were licensed under the 3-clause BSD, and it's the latter which is
explicitly OSI certified.  That says nothing about the use of the 4-clause
BSD by other licensors (the NetBSD Foundation uses it on their code),
or about the 2-clause BSD which is the subject of the current proposal.

My view is that both the 2-clause and the 4-clause BSD are obviously Open
Source, and that the 2-clause should be certified, since it is known to
be in use and someone has requested it.

--
John Cowan  cowan@...  http://ccil.org/~cowan
Linguistics is arguably the most hotly contested property in the academic
realm. It is soaked with the blood of poets, theologians, philosophers,
philologists, psychologists, biologists and neurologists, along with
whatever blood can be got out of grammarians. - Russ Rymer

[Chuck Swiger]

On Jun 5, 2007, at 11:02 AM, John Cowan wrote:

> That refers to clause 3 of the original or 4-clause BSD, the  
> "obnoxious"
> required-advertising clause, which made it incompatible (according to
> the FSF) with the GPL:
>
>       * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of  
> this software
>       *    must display the following acknowledgement:
>       *    This product includes software developed by the  
> University of
>       *    California, Berkeley and its contributors.
>
> Anything licensed by UCB itself under the 4-clause BSD is now as if
> it were licensed under the 3-clause BSD, and it's the latter which is
> explicitly OSI certified.

You're absolutely right.

> That says nothing about the use of the 4-clause
> BSD by other licensors (the NetBSD Foundation uses it on their code),
> or about the 2-clause BSD which is the subject of the current  
> proposal.

The removal of the advertising clause as far as UCal/Berkeley is  
concerned does not affect third-parties who choose to use the 4-
clause version and intend for the advertising clause to be in  
effect.  I wouldn't say that the NetBSD Foundation is entirely  
independent from using sources which came from UCal/Berkeley, but  
they've certainly created lots of new code themselves which they can  
license under the 4-clause BSDL, or however else they wish.

> My view is that both the 2-clause and the 4-clause BSD are  
> obviously Open
> Source, and that the 2-clause should be certified, since it is  
> known to
> be in use and someone has requested it.

I agree that all of the BSDL variants mentioned above are Open  
Source; the question was whether we ought to certify all of these  
variants explicitly.  I don't see any harm in doing so, any more than  
the slight textual variations of the BSDL one might find seem to  
constitute a problem.

--
-Chuck