Subject: Re: For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)
From: Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:19:31 -0500

Chris Travers wrote:

> Do we have a written statement from UC Berkeley to that effect?

The written statement is of course the license.  See e.g.
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro/sa/sfman/user/ref/index.html#license

for an exact copy of the OSI version on a Berkeley page.  If you can
find a 3-clause BSD different from the OSI version, do let us now.

> If not, has anyone done a study of Berkeley Software Distribution
> licenses to ensure there aren't subtle wording differences which might
> affect the scope of the license (for example by including or excluding
> documentation)?

The original, canonical version includes documentation.  Now, that
doesn't stop people from excluding it and calling it BSD, but they are
being inaccurate.

>>> (the Kerberos license
>>> from MIT is further from the "MIT License" on the OSI site than the
>>> Intel Open Source License is from the BSD License on the web site).
>> Unfortunately, there are many licenses called MIT license.  The OSI site
>> has an exact copy of one of them.
> 
> I am willing to bet that all MIT Licenses are issued by MIT.

I didn't say otherwise.  There are many distinct MIT licenses issued by
MIT.  The MIT license on OSI is based on one of the MIT/X11 licenses.

Matt Flaschen