{"id":"OLDAP-2.8","title":"Open LDAP Public License v2.8","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/spdx/license-list-data/main/text/OLDAP-2.8.txt","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"created","summary":"The record models version 2.8 of the OpenLDAP Public License, a BSD-form license whose third condition asks for a verbatim copy of the license document in every redistribution. It adds a revision clause that lets a licensee use the software under any later revision of the license, and a sentence keeping title to copyright with the copyright holders; both are quoted.","findings":[{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"\"Redistribution and use of this software and associated documentation (\"Software\"), with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met\". The permissive core, as on BSD-3-Clause.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:duty","description":"The three conditions are the retention of copyright statements and notices in source form, their reproduction with the list of conditions and the disclaimer in binary form, and a verbatim copy of the license document in every redistribution. cc:Attribution and cc:Notice on distribute, modify and derive.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"The text reads: \"The names of the authors and copyright holders must not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealing in this Software without specific, written prior permission.\" That is dalicc:promote as a prohibition. dalicc:ChangeLicense is prohibited because the text requires the license itself to travel with every copy, which is the reading IscLicense and BSD-3-Clause take of the same clause. The MIT record does not carry the prohibition although its text has the same requirement, so the library is not uniform here. (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:orLaterVersionOption","description":"The revision clause reads: \"You may use this Software under terms of this license revision or under the terms of any subsequent revision of the license.\" That is an or-later option outside the GNU family. dalicc:orLaterVersionOption would express it as true, but the property is so far used only on the GNU records and the consolidation decision that introduced it named those four records only, so the triple is proposed and not written, and the clause is quoted in dalicc:additionalClauses instead.","action":"proposed","change":"dalicc:orLaterVersionOption true ;\n"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"minor","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"Three sentences are quoted: the revision clause, the advertising and title sentence, and the registered-trademark sentence. The last one is a statement of fact rather than a term, but it is the reason the promote prohibition matters here.","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.","action":"none"},{"rubric":2,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:target","description":"One odrl:AssetCollection of dct:type dcmitype:Software, following BSD-3-Clause. The text licenses software and associated documentation.","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 library holds no other OpenLDAP record, so no dalicc:variantKind is written even though the text calls itself version 2.8. Against BSD-3-Clause the differences are the verbatim-copy condition, the revision clause and the title sentence.","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: \"Redistribution and use of this software and associated documentation (\"Software\"), with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions in source form must retain copyright statements and notices ...\" 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. The last paragraph of the published text grants permission to copy and distribute verbatim copies of the license document itself; that is a permission about the document, not about the software, so it is not modelled."}