http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070114093427179
"Abstract
We observe that there exists a broad misconception that the BSD permits the licensing of BSD code and modifications of BSD code under closed source licenses. In this paper we put forward an argument to the effect that the terms of the BSD require BSD code and modifications to BSD code to be licensed under the terms of the BSD license. We look at some possible consequences and observe that this licensing requirement could have serious impacts on the unwary."
So I was reading this and it got me into looking at the license a bit more carefully. Even if from an Australian common law perspective it brings up some questions about the license.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
lr was talking about how he thought the mit license is more liberal. The new BSD license is just as liberal except without the caveat that in the third point of the license: "Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission." the portion about endorsement and promotion is not included in the mit license. Now I'm not sure if you'd like having your name attributed to derivative distributions without your permissions, but it is more liberal!
I learned that today :D
"Abstract
We observe that there exists a broad misconception that the BSD permits the licensing of BSD code and modifications of BSD code under closed source licenses. In this paper we put forward an argument to the effect that the terms of the BSD require BSD code and modifications to BSD code to be licensed under the terms of the BSD license. We look at some possible consequences and observe that this licensing requirement could have serious impacts on the unwary."
So I was reading this and it got me into looking at the license a bit more carefully. Even if from an Australian common law perspective it brings up some questions about the license.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
lr was talking about how he thought the mit license is more liberal. The new BSD license is just as liberal except without the caveat that in the third point of the license: "Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission." the portion about endorsement and promotion is not included in the mit license. Now I'm not sure if you'd like having your name attributed to derivative distributions without your permissions, but it is more liberal!
I learned that today :D
> without your permissions
er, permission.
er, permission.
i thought that's what i said, that the mit license is more liberal than the 3-point bsdl.
although i didn't use the 2-point "new" bsdl. i used the openbsd license. i don't know how that compares.
should we use the mit license?
although i didn't use the 2-point "new" bsdl. i used the openbsd license. i don't know how that compares.
should we use the mit license?
the license preferred for new OpenBSD code is available <a href="http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/share/misc/license.template">here</a>.
the template for this license is mentioned <a href="http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html">here</a> under Specific Cases --> ISC.
Wikipedia <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_License#BSD-style_licenses">claims</a> that the 2-clause BSD license is functionally equivalent to the MIT license.
the template for this license is mentioned <a href="http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html">here</a> under Specific Cases --> ISC.
Wikipedia <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_License#BSD-style_licenses">claims</a> that the 2-clause BSD license is functionally equivalent to the MIT license.
great, haha.
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sha … e.template
http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_License#BSD-style_licenses
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sha … e.template
http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_License#BSD-style_licenses
I think it's just a question of endorsement. In a narrow case when using the MIT license there would be the option of another developer using your name and original product in trying to sell it. Say someone develops a poorer deviant then making a product out of it from your solid code, and as it is poorer, it would misrepresent the quality of the original software and the names of the contributors. If someone chose to attach your name in promoting the poorer as a product, they would be able to do this without asking you. Just think "poorerBB! the next generation in forum software! built on the thinktank framework!" So if you think any attention is good attention then maybe this way is fine. I'd rather do the BSDL way.
With BSDL it would only allow the one redistributing to add you/your product as endorsement only if they ask permission. For either MITL/BSDL any other person can take the original code anyway, so why have possibly poorer product representing your work? There is also the chance that someone comes along and improves on your code in which case you would hope for them to ask your permission to drop your name. Even though this is one step more procedurally inhibitive for the good end result products, it would reflect more positively if there were 1 good improved software endorsing ttf code, as opposed to 2 poorly designed products.
I don't think any of this means much outside of a purely public image perspective of the organization or individual. The BSD/MIT licenses still do an equivalent job of keeping that source/binary license free.
Well I think that's how that works.
With BSDL it would only allow the one redistributing to add you/your product as endorsement only if they ask permission. For either MITL/BSDL any other person can take the original code anyway, so why have possibly poorer product representing your work? There is also the chance that someone comes along and improves on your code in which case you would hope for them to ask your permission to drop your name. Even though this is one step more procedurally inhibitive for the good end result products, it would reflect more positively if there were 1 good improved software endorsing ttf code, as opposed to 2 poorly designed products.
I don't think any of this means much outside of a purely public image perspective of the organization or individual. The BSD/MIT licenses still do an equivalent job of keeping that source/binary license free.
Well I think that's how that works.
http://forums.bsdnexus.com/viewtopic.php?id=164
Oh yeah and I read all of this thread, there is some grand confusion about the different freedom contexts. I hope to make a post about it a bit later.
The only person way off the mark is zenlunatic. Next might be scottro, then KernelPanicked, except KP rescinded his initial comments and understands it better now. Andre is on the mark just about the whole way, good job andre!
Oh yeah and I read all of this thread, there is some grand confusion about the different freedom contexts. I hope to make a post about it a bit later.
The only person way off the mark is zenlunatic. Next might be scottro, then KernelPanicked, except KP rescinded his initial comments and understands it better now. Andre is on the mark just about the whole way, good job andre!
asemi:
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sha … e.template
http://thinktankforums.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/_license.txt
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sha … e.template
http://thinktankforums.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/_license.txt
woops, I misread this: "although i didn't use the 2-point "new" bsdl." as "although i did use the 2-point "new" bsdl."
oh. just like dp misreading phi_'s post on the dalai lama.
haha, exactly.