Subject: Re: For Approval: The Simplified BSD License
From: "Zac Bowling" <zac@zacbowling.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 20:46:26 -0500

Also, if GPL compatibilty is what you are worried about, just check
out the list on GNU.org's Free Licenses under "GPL-Compatible Free
Software Licenses"

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

A bunch have "no-endorsement" clauses but are listed as "GPL
compatible" including:
 Clarified Artistic License
 Modified BSD license
 NCSA/University of Illinois Open Source License
 EU DataGrid Software License
 OpenLDAP License, Version 2.7
 License of Python 2.0.1, 2.1.1, and newer versions
 Intel Open Source License (as published by OSI)
 License of ZLib
 Zope Public License version 2.0


On 9/8/07, Zac Bowling <zac@zacbowling.com> wrote:
> I suggest non approval. This is the "FreeBSD license"
> (http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html). It's close
> enough to Modified BSD/MIT/X11 and offers no new novel features or
> concepts. Because a license is compatible or not with the GPL should
> not beat the non mass license proliferation goals of the OSI.
>
> The no endorsements is something you that you already have some
> protection for under US law already. Using someone's name is protected
> in the same way a trademark is protected. Employees of the FSF have
> even commented that they believe that modified BSD (3 clause BSD) is
> functionally compatbile with the GPLv2 if you remove the advertising
> clause.
>
> GPLv2 says in the preamble, "If the software is modified by someone
> else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have
> is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will
> not reflect on the original authors' reputations.". IANAL , but the
> "no endorsements" of Modified BSD fits with the intent of the preamble
> and I don't believe that the no endorcements clause does adds an extra
> restriction on the terms of the GPL that are not already required when
> you have to notify the user that you modified it. They both pretty
> much prevent you from saying "Mozilla's Firefox" if you modified it
> and added a bunch of new features.
>
> The GPLv3 clarifies it by explicitily allowing you to include a
> "no-endorsement" clause without issue.
>
> "Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
> add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders
> of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:
> ...
> d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or
> authors of the material; or
> e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade
> names, trademarks, or service marks; or
> ..."
>
>
> Zac
>
> On 9/8/07, Chuck Swiger <chuck@codefab.com> wrote:
> > Donovan Hawkins wrote:
> > > On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> > >> ...and some BSD licensors are unwilling to use MIT...
> > >
> > > Why is that exactly? The proliferation of BSD-like licenses is enormous,
> > > and I don't quite understand the reason for it when so many of the
> > > licenses are so similar.
> >
> > You're certainly right-- the last time I checked, there were over thirty minor
> > textual variants of the BSD license in the standard C library sources.
> >
> > However, all of these variants are simple, permissive licenses which are
> > compatible with each other and all (or pretty much all) of the OSI-approved
> > licenses, so this type of license proliferation doesn't seem to be doing any
> > real harm in the way that having less permissive licenses interact might.
> >
> > --
> > -Chuck
> >
>
>
> --
> Zac Bowling
> http://www.zacbowling.com
> ---
>
> I support Mozilla Firefox.
> http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=12079&t=1
>


-- 
Zac Bowling
http://www.zacbowling.com
---

I support Mozilla Firefox.
http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=12079&t=1