LBNL BSD licence

I've realized that the licence for a package I've recently had reviewed
is actually "LBNL BSD"
<>, not BSD3 with a DoE
disclaimer, as I thought. (Mea culpa, but licensecheck didn't spot it.)

Anyway, I've fixed that, but I can't find any discussion about the
licence. Does anyone know of any past discussion, specifically any
recommendation for dealing with the clause that seems problematic to me
as a potential booby-trap for contributors:

You are under no obligation whatsoever to provide any bug fixes, patches, or
upgrades to the features, functionality or performance of the source code
("Enhancements") to anyone; however, if you choose to make your Enhancements
available either publicly, or directly to Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, without imposing a separate written license agreement for such
Enhancements, then you hereby grant the following license: a non-exclusive,
royalty-free perpetual license to install, use, modify, prepare derivative
works, incorporate into other computer software, distribute, and sublicense
such enhancements or derivative works thereof, in binary and source code form.

People sending copyright-significant changes probably don't expect to
grant an all-permissive licence (which presumably involves the
possibility of removing copyright notices, for instance), so I wondered
what to do for the "separate written license" to keep contributions
under the basic BSD3 terms. I'm thinking of modifying the COPYING file
to say simply that changes are distributed only under BSD3 terms.


Re: LBNL BSD licence

By =?ISO-8859-1?B?... at 07/05/2016 - 11:04

2016-07-05 11:45 GMT+02:00 Dave Love <d. ... at liverpool dot>:
Do not change shipped license file from upstream.
First, contact the following list: legal AT in
order to clarify the obscure points.
Then, coordinate with upstream to fix licensing upstream if you're requested to.


Re: LBNL BSD licence

By Dave Love at 07/06/2016 - 05:11

Haïkel < ... at fedoraproject dot org> writes:

Of course (though Fedora doesn't seem to regard modifying a licence
document as much of a legal issue as I do
<>). I should have
said that COPYING is just a pointer to LBNL's standard LICENSE.

The licence is free and won't be changed, and I don't think there's any
obscure point in it per se. I was just interested in previous
discussion of this before checking on possible wording. I only know of
one other Fedora package under the licence and don't know if there's a
way to search by licence, but I assume there are others as it's on the
licence list.