[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: BSD Protection License

At 21:33 22/10/2003 -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
I have asked on Debian-legal whether the "BSD Protection License" can
be considered free, and this is the reply I got:

> It does not appear possible to
> meet 3c and 4c simultaneously and there is no real indication that you
> mustn't meet both. Therefore, I suggest that the licence is not free.

People read licenses in strange ways. Nobody seems concerned by the fact that paragraphs 2 and 3 cannot be satisfied simultaneously, yet lots of people complain that paragraphs 3 and 4 cannot be satisfied simultaneously.

I think your license needs to clearly state that it must meet
either 3 OR 4.

I don't think that's necessary. Licenses are interpreted by "reasonable men"; there's only one reading of the license which makes any sense at all; I think we can trust "reasonable men" to assume that I wasn't smoking crack when I wrote the license. At one point, I considered adding a clause 4.5, "You may modify and distribute ... the following conditions: a) You must be alive, b) You must be dead", but I decided that would be a bit overly frivolous.

I think point 3.c in your license is flawed since it prevent people to
download a given package from anywhere but the original author. eg. simtel.com
could be distribute it..


> Finally, can you call something "BSD" if you aren't descended from UCB?

Can you?

Why not? Are you suggesting that UCB might launch a trademark suit over three letters? I think I'll accept that risk.

Could you just use a regular BSD license?

  I can't do that right now.  I might be able to do that at some later date.

Colin Percival

Reply to: