I sent this to OSI's linux-discuss list 10 hours ago and it didn't show up in the web archive at http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/ . I sent it again 10 minutes ago with the same result. (Yes, I am subscribed to the list, and got the "welcome" message from that before sending both messages.)
Does anyone else have a suggestion? Rob On 4/4/21 6:18 AM, Rob Landley wrote: > In 2018 OSI held a vote to rename 0BSD (not dual-name it): > > http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-November/003830.html > > The license both shipped in Android M and was approved as Zero Clause BSD by > SPDX before it was ever submitted to OSI under a different name. The person > who > submitted it to OSI under another name is on record as not minding calling it > 0BSD, he just wants to see it used. Kirk McKusick has approved calling it Zero > Clause BSD: > > https://landley.net/toybox/0bsd-mckusick.txt > > A single OSI board member came to the SPDX mailing list in 2015 to defend > OSI's > conflicting position, and was denied by SPDX. That same OSI board member was > the > main voice objecting to the discussion here in 2018 when I raised the issue of > acknowledging the license's original name and conforming to SPDX. > > After his position was voted down, he continued to publicly disagree with the > results after the vote: > > http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-November/003831.html > > At the time I assumed this board member was the one who memorialized the > dispute > with a single "yeah but" note in OSI's 0BSD page: > > https://web.archive.org/web/20181219001235/https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD > > I noted at the time that this struck me as problematic, but chose not to raise > the issue here because letting this person "have the last word" seemed > prudent: > > https://landley.net/notes-2018.html#14-11-2018 > > Unfortunately, since then someone has changed OSI's page to put the deadname > as > a prominent dual name, in boldface next to the official name and also in the > page title: > > https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD > > Which was then propagated back to wikipedia: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BSD_licenses&type=revision&diff=1007661505&oldid=1007656464 > > Could someone please point me to where in the archives this issue was raised > again and voted on again to change the name back without notifying me the > issue > was once again in dispute? > > If there wasn't a second vote changing the name again, and "0BSD" is still the > acknowledged name for it, could OSI please remove all mention of the no longer > relevant name from the 0BSD page? It does not need a "historical" mention > because it was not what the license was called when it was created and is not > what the license is called now. It does nothing but cause market confusion > (Free > as in Free Software Foundation, on the GPL side of GPL-vs-BSD axis, it must be > REALLY viral), and apparently if we don't remove all of this tumor it > metastasizes. > > Thank you for your time, > > Rob > > P.S. My apologies if I come off a tad frustrated. > _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
