{"id":"BlueOak-1.0.0","title":"Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/spdx/license-list-data/main/text/BlueOak-1.0.0.txt","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"created","summary":"The record models the Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0, a permissive license written in plain language. Each contributor licenses everything that would otherwise infringe their copyright and everything that would otherwise infringe their patent claims, so the record carries dalicc:patentGrant as a permission. The one condition is that everyone who gets a copy from you also gets the license text or a link to it, which is cc:Notice on distribute, modify and derive.","findings":[{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"The copyright grant reads: \"Each contributor licenses you to do everything with this software that would otherwise infringe that contributor's copyright in it.\" Everything means the full permissive set, including commercial use, both fee terms and modified and derivative works.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"The patent section reads: \"Each contributor licenses you to do everything with this software that would otherwise infringe any patent claims they can license or become able to license.\" That is an express patent license, so dalicc:patentGrant is a permission. This and MulanPSL-2.0 are the two records of the review group that carry it.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:duty","description":"The Notices section reads: \"You must ensure that everyone who gets a copy of any part of this software from you, with or without changes, also gets the text of this license or a link to <https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0>.\" cc:Notice on distribute, modify and derive. There is no cc:Attribution duty: the license asks for its own text, not for a credit to the author.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"dalicc:ChangeLicense is prohibited, because the license text has to reach every recipient. The review group notes expected a patent retaliation clause; version 1.0.0 has none, so dalicc:patentRetaliationTermination is not written. The only way to lose the license is to fail the Notices section and not cure it. (Corrected on 2026-09-15 by the verification pass: see the rubric 3 finding on relicensing below.)","action":"applied"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"The Excuse section is a cure period: a licensee notified in writing of a notices failure keeps the license by taking all practical steps to comply within 30 days, and loses it otherwise. That is termination on breach with a cure window, and no property can carry it. Proposed term: dalicc:terminatesOnBreach, a property over the existing dalicc:terminationOnBreach concept, with a companion for the cure period. Quoted in dalicc:additionalClauses, together with the Acceptance section and the irrevocability sentence.","action":"none"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"minor","field":"dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer","description":"The No Liability section is a single sentence covering both warranty and liability, so it is quoted whole into dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer and dalicc:LiabilityLimitation is left out, the way the MIT record keeps one paragraph in one field. The three asterisks the source puts around the sentence are typographic emphasis and are dropped.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"info","field":"cc:jurisdiction","description":"The text names no legal system and no term, so cc:jurisdiction is dalicc:worldwide and dalicc:validityType is dalicc:perpetual. The Reliability section adds that \"No contributor can revoke this license.\", which is quoted; the library has a dalicc:irrevocable quality but no property to attach it to a record.","action":"none"},{"rubric":2,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:target","description":"One odrl:AssetCollection of dct:type dcmitype:Software, following BSL-1.0. The text licenses software.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":9,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"The consistency check with the axioms of dg_default returned no conflicts.","action":"none"},{"rubric":10,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"The closest existing record is BSL-1.0, which is also a short permissive license with a single notice condition. Blue Oak differs in granting patent rights expressly and in the cure period.","action":"none"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"Library convention 15: a licence that asks for no reciprocity and no source code asks only that the notice travels with the copy, which is a duty on the acts it governs and not a bar on putting the copy under other terms. dalicc:ChangeLicense is therefore a permission here, and the prohibition the earlier reading wrote is removed. The text reads: \"Each contributor licenses you to do everything with this software that would otherwise infringe that contributor's copyright in it. ... You must ensure that everyone who gets a copy of any part of this software from you, with or without changes, also gets the text of this license.\" The permission carries the dalicc:compliantLicense duty, as Apache-2.0 does, because the notice has to survive the relicensing.","action":"applied"}],"family":"Permissive: MIT, ISC and BSD-like","port_of":null,"variant_kind":null,"notes":"Modelled from the SPDX plain text, which is the Markdown source published by the Blue Oak Council. Section headings and the Markdown emphasis are not part of the quoted clauses."}