I've realized that the licence for a package I've recently had reviewed is actually "LBNL BSD" <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/LBNLBSD>, 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. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
