Fix a dead link, add link to OpenBSD suggested template license,

and record Kirk McKusick's email for posterity. (I posted it to the
mailing list when it happened, but this is more obvious...)

2 files changed, 190 insertions, 5 deletions

diff --git a/www/0bsd-mckusick.txt b/www/0bsd-mckusick.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..97f85e27
--- /dev/null
+++ b/www/0bsd-mckusick.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
+From - Wed Oct 17 13:27:51 2018
+X-Account-Key: account1
+X-UIDL: GmailId166832be205bc2bd
+X-Mozilla-Status: 1013
+X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
+X-Mozilla-Keys:                                                                                 
+Delivered-To: rob@landley.net
+Received: by 2002:ab0:208c:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id r12csp943206uak;
+        Wed, 17 Oct 2018 10:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
+X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61EHdCAKXqiC2g4VHKVIL9kgr4swWkJtL9r6jorwOeN6QWG09j9dd8vuBA2AqOxUrypnI88
+X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:16a4:: with SMTP id h33-v6mr26279849plh.3.1539798983448;
+        Wed, 17 Oct 2018 10:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
+ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1539798983; cv=none;
+        d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;
+        b=E/rO76Tc0QzdNYVqa3mOrkhv21WxRyex6QvEcEw2ejkTXu3csi2hFDckupiXuJyBYi
+         zXk7prvMPwpP229CvoeWCl723QCCDRFU0b1S/1Z7gD9I3gk/t6Vnp0U1pJ/oFhUaExlJ
+         l2/HwgzW0eVnMQsJHKlzP8zNqJhOUFD+xI35NiRa9J1tH0BomncWOz7lTXlvaTED2Vdz
+         ZHoFuv89BUKCkKGbfm4/O0KTNECK6rK1Db87M/rGCpUQpCQacVr29Lf3AWLQikDR62dB
+         vCqIMCD3mvRcPPOo8VIN/xyQQ9J4OcBZ/jZ/zfxcbZc11fng8GNHlp33hCxuyKHUwbeT
+         nOmw==
+ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;
+        h=date:content-transfer-encoding:content-id:mime-version:comments
+         :in-reply-to:reply-to:subject:to:from:message-id;
+        bh=HpIGga40Wz3PXDOHP7PrAJqWHlOoA7xl5QvPk2tjJig=;
+        b=JdV87WgS3oz/oa3fJSLdgU42ag+CKECK7OuT/DLvHfmwc2XtIMkx99zexEOi3S8DJp
+         eaxLjf70GfCzWyq2fP11rUjemnTxW9R9efZEkZanvq36rbj7A+3/NmzvYPLwm8bihlke
+         Gu8/FoVrE8ZANi252MKvejMVYsrYsyEJnO/vmiteVR5wD8mwHtYQnDXmwta6ZhH/ko+t
+         uWXkHxOxs6y21CElD+40BvkIGGwFNd4FptjTA1T0rgw0PTUB/igdKvvwk1LotqbERJv5
+         nhNHc47pJ4EU2o7G4yAwBBVETXQYYc8rl259VCKiSuGy0hEKGKweVieTEAe8V+NrZzd2
+         UV7A==
+ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com;
+       spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mckusick@mckusick.com designates 70.36.157.235 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mckusick@mckusick.com
+Return-Path: <mckusick@mckusick.com>
+Received: from chez.mckusick.com (chez.mckusick.com. [70.36.157.235])
+        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 129-v6si18906639pfd.201.2018.10.17.10.56.23
+        for <rob@landley.net>
+        (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
+        Wed, 17 Oct 2018 10:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
+Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mckusick@mckusick.com designates 70.36.157.235 as permitted sender) client-ip=70.36.157.235;
+Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
+       spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mckusick@mckusick.com designates 70.36.157.235 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mckusick@mckusick.com
+Received: from chez.mckusick.com (localhost [IPv6:::1])
+	by chez.mckusick.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w9HI1egQ039009
+	for <rob@landley.net>; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 11:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
+	(envelope-from mckusick@mckusick.com)
+Message-Id: <201810171801.w9HI1egQ039009@chez.mckusick.com>
+From: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>
+To: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
+Subject: Re: License naming question.
+X-URL: http://WWW.McKusick.COM/
+Reply-To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>
+In-reply-to: <9bf40da7-afb3-d3d6-3759-d1566c99aa20@landley.net>
+Comments: In-reply-to Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
+   message dated "Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:57:10 -0500."
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
+Content-ID: <39007.1539799300.1@chez.mckusick.com>
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 11:01:40 -0700
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MISSING_MID,
+	UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1
+X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on chez.mckusick.com
+
+> To: mckusick@mckusick.com
+> From: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
+> Subject: License naming question.
+> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:57:10 -0500
+> =
+
+> Hi,
+> =
+
+> We spoke at Ohio Linuxfest back in 2013 (you attended my Rise and
+> Fall of Copyleft talk, and then we talked in the hallway afterwards).
+> =
+
+> I _think_ I told you about my plans to try to promote public domain
+> equivalent licensing, a concept which has a wikipedia page now:
+> =
+
+> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_equivalent_license
+> =
+
+> For toybox what I did was take the OpenBSD suggested template license
+> off their website and remove the half-sentence requiring people to
+> copy that specific license text into derived works, and the resulting
+> license made it past Google's lawyers! My toybox project has been
+> providing the command line for android since Marshmallow
+> (https://lwn.net/Articles/629362/) and we're making progress on
+> getting android to build under android, the Bionic libc maintainer
+> recently sent me a roadmap update about that:
+> =
+
+> https://github.com/landley/toybox/commit/92b359f00057
+> =
+
+> I called the resulting license "Zero Clause BSD" (by analogy with
+> "Creative Commons Zero" and the existing 4 clause, 3 clause, and 2
+> clause BSD licenses), and I even got SPDX approval for it in 2015
+> (because Samsung asked me to shortly after Google merged it into
+> AOSP, they'd been adding it aftermarket before then and having an
+> SPDX identifier for the license simplified their internal bureaucracy).
+> =
+
+> Then a couple months after SPDX approved it, somebody _else_ submitted
+> the same license to Eric Raymond's old Open Source Initiative using
+> "Free" in the name, as in Free Software Foundation. (A sadly loaded
+> term these days.)
+> =
+
+> I hadn't known they were still in the license approval business
+> (they stopped approving new licenses in... 2012? And I remember
+> them explicitly _rejecting_ CC0 saying public domain isn't a license,
+> which their FAQ still talks about at
+> https://opensource.org/faq#public-domain). But they approved the
+> toybox license under a different name, then asked SPDX to retroactively
+> change their name for it. (SPDX didn't, but OSI refused to admit
+> it made a mistake, even though they said they had a policy to keep
+> the names in sync. They hadn't done their homework.)
+> =
+
+> Now every time the license is considered for a new use, the confusion
+> OSI caused tends to derail things:
+> =
+
+> https://github.com/david-a-wheeler/spdx-tutorial/issues/1
+> =
+
+> When github itself was considering adding 0BSD to its license
+> pulldown (which would have been a big win), I was asked what I
+> thought of the naming confusion, and I wrote two long things on my
+> rationale with lots of links to earlier stuff, which you can read
+> here if you'd like:
+> =
+
+> https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/issues/464
+> =
+
+> Anyway, I recently decided to ask OSI to admit they made a mistake
+> and change their name for the license to match what SPDX did, and
+> there was unanimous approval...
+> =
+
+> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.or=
+g/2018-September/003519.html
+> =
+
+> Until the same guy who was objecting last time showed up to continue
+> to object.  He ignord the "who used it first" axis, and said he
+> wanted to know which  name was used more today, and then when he
+> lost that argument he said he objects to calling something a BSD
+> license that isn't using Berkeley's original wording.
+> =
+
+> My question is: do you object to the name "Zero Clause BSD" for a
+> public domain equivalent license that's the OpenBSD suggested
+> template license with half a sentence removed?
+> =
+
+> If you want to stay out of this, I understand. I'm pretty sure I
+> asked you this in 2013 before I started pushing the name, and
+> wouldn't have if you'd objected then, but that was long ago and the
+> water under the bridge is dead...
+> =
+
+> Thanks for your time, sorry that took so long to explain. (And even
+> longer if you read the big long github choosealicense thread. :)
+> =
+
+> Rob
+
+Thanks for the through explanation of the situation.
+
+I have no objections to the name "Zero Clause BSD" for your license.
+
+I hope that you are successful in getting OSI to change their name
+for the license to match what SPDX did.
+
+	Kirk McKusick
+
diff --git a/www/license.html b/www/license.html
index f250410f..55521e73 100755
--- a/www/license.html
+++ b/www/license.html
@@ -28,17 +28,18 @@ OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.</p>
 <a href=http://unlicense.org>unlicense</a>, and <a href=http://wtfpl.net/>wtfpl</a>,
 the intent is to effectively place the licensed material into the public domain,
 which after decades of FUD (such as the time OSI's ex-lawyer compared
-<a href=http://www.cod5.org/archive/>placing code into the public domain</a> to
+<a href=https://web.archive.org/web/20160530090006/http://www.cod5.org/archive/>placing code into the public domain</a> to
 <a href=http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225>abandoning trash by the
 side of a highway</a>) is considered somehow unsafe. But if some random third
 party
 <a href=https://github.com/mkj/dropbear/blob/master/libtomcrypt/LICENSE>takes
 public domain code</a> and slaps <a href=http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/gnuzip/gnuzip-25/gzip/gzip.c>some other license on it</a>, then it's fine.</p>
 
-<p>To work around this perception, the above license is a standard 2-clause BSD
-license <a href=https://github.com/landley/toybox/commit/ee86b1d8e25cb0ca9d418b33eb0dc5e7716ddc1e>minus the half sentence</a>
-requiring text copied verbatim into derived works. If 2BSD is
-ok, the 0BSD should be ok, despite being equivalent to placing code in the
+<p>To work around this perception, the above license is the
+<a href=https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html>OpenBSD suggested template
+license</a>, <a href=https://github.com/landley/toybox/commit/ee86b1d8e25cb0ca9d418b33eb0dc5e7716ddc1e>minus the half sentence</a>
+requiring the license text be copied verbatim into derived works. If 2BSD is
+ok, then 0BSD should be ok, despite being equivalent to placing code in the
 public domain.</p>
 
 <p>Modifying the license in this way avoids the hole android toolbox fell into where
@@ -49,4 +50,8 @@ additional restrictions" and BSD's "you must include this large hunk of text"
 by sticking the two licenses at
 <a href=http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/networking/ping.c?id=887a1ad57fe978cd320be358effbe66df8a068bf>opposite ends of the file</a> and hoping nobody
 noticed.</a>
+
+<p>Note: I asked <a href=https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/kirkmck.html>Kirk McKusick</a> for permission to call this a BSD license at
+a conference shortly before I started using the name,
+and <a href=0bsd-mckusick.txt>again in 2018</a>.</p>
 <!--#include file="footer.html" -->