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. _______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
