Re: Another extended BSD licence :-/
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 01:39:33PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> The first three paragraphs look like a BSD licence to me, paragraph four
> is a personal rant from the authors. Apart from the obvious (remove
> everything following "no x86-only assembly code..."), what else would be
> needed to make this a valid licence suitable for inclusion into
> I can see:
> - it is not specified to whom you need to provide source
> - "You may not turn this..." would be implied in the next sentence
> - the bit about portability is pretty vague.
> I'm going to try to convince the authors to use the GPL, but given their
> aversion to OSS "politics" I'm not sure that will work. :/
Try to convince them to use BSD, which would only imply removing their
crappy addition to it. That rant has nothing to do in a license text.