Clarify license(s) for non-OASIS use of headers

[vkkoskie]

Hi there. I'm neither a member of OASIS nor a legal expert, so apologies if I'm misunderstanding this issue. I'm trying to include these headers in a different open source project and am having a lot of trouble understanding whether or not that's permitted.

Most of what I've found is directed at OASIS work product contributors rather than consumers. I did eventually find this page, though, and it seems to say (Section 4) that this repository falls under BSD-3-Clause by default.

Can you confirm that this is the intended license for using pkcs11 headers from this repository? If not, what license(s) do apply? And in either case, I think it would be a good idea to explicitly include this information in the relevant repository documents for general reference.

[computerquip-work]

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer or a member of OASIS

The headers include a copyright header. As far as I can tell, they are distributed under the OASIS IPR Policy. The license header is the alternative short form of the license under Section 14.1: https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/ipr/#notices

You'll have to read the license yourself but it's not restrictive at all, it's pretty close to a BSD-like license from what I can tell.

[richardfontana]

This license is not a BSD-like license; it is not an open source license at all. Very annoying, but from what I've seen typical of OASIS's hostility to open source.

[computerquip-work]

I'm not sure how you figure. You must maintain copyright (which BSD does as well) but you're free to distribute and modify it as you see fit and you're granted such permission perpetually in such a way that OASIS cannot strip it.

Again, I'm not a lawyer and I suggest if you really care, you should get legal to look at it. But it seems like the intention is pretty clear, at least in regard to these headers.

[inorton]

I suspect people would be happier if this was under an OSI approved license. Some organisations have requirements like that.

[computerquip-work]

I suspect people would be happier if this was under an OSI approved license. Some organisations have requirements like that.

I can understand that. I'm not defending them in that regard at all. I'm also aware that it's caused some drama. Using a common OSI approved license would make life easier for everyone who uses the headers.