New license request: BSD-2-Clause variant [SPDX-Online-Tools]

[mschwendt]

1. License Name: -
2. Short identifier: -
3. License Author or steward: Unknown
4. Comments: This license, which resembles BSD-2-Clause but with a much shorter disclaimer, has been brought to attention during Fedora Project's licensing review of packages: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/624

The license is being used by the Audacious media player since 2012 (version 3.3) and at least 30 of its plug-ins.
5. License Request Url: http://tools.spdx.org/app/license_requests/422
6. URL(s): https://github.com/audacious-media-player/audacious/blob/master/src/audacious/main.cc, https://github.com/audacious-media-player/audacious/blob/master/COPYING
7. OSI Status: Unknown
8. Example Projects: https://github.com/audacious-media-player

[mschwendt]

Full license text:

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
   this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer.

2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
   this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer in the
   documentation provided with the distribution.

This software is provided “as is” and without any warranty, express or
implied.  In no event shall the authors be liable for any damages arising
from the use of this software.

[karsten-klein]

{metæffekt} Universe
canonical name: BSD 2-Clause License (variant 016)
short name: BSD-2-Clause-016
markers: General Terms Matches Marker, No Warranty Marker
category: BSD
OSI status: none

ScanCode
matched id: linux-openib
matched id: warranty-disclaimer

Comment
The disclaimer is equivalent to the (SPDX License Id: pkgconf). The clauses are BSD-2. As such it is a new combination. +1 to add. ScanCode matches linux-openib with a score of 100.0; this is inaccurate in terms of the disclaimer.

[jlovejoy]

[jlovejoy]

so the key differences are the omission of "and/or other materials" in clause 2 and the shortened disclaimer. I did a bit of an analysis/comparison below. All caps = what is in BSD-2-Clause and other bits are what is in this license:

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED [BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS] "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.

This software is provided “as is” and without any warranty, express or implied.

JL: I would say this functionally says the same thing, except the BSD-2-Clause includes examples of implied warranties, as well as "provided [by names]"

IN NO EVENT SHALL THE [COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS] BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

In no event shall the [authors] be liable for any damages arising from the use of this software.

JL: Similarly, the shorter version here does not give all the usual examples of different types of damages, and also omits the specific langauge about different types of liability. This seems like more of a substantive difference going off my gut feel.

I would be curious if anyone knows of any caselaw interpreting these kinds of differences in disclaimers?