Re: BSD license type?
Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org> writes:
> Wouldn't it be better to show somehow the relationship in the name?
What purpose would that serve? I think this is a custom license text,
not published by BSD, so should clearly avoid any implication of being
published by BSD.
> IMO it is already clear that it is not identical to a BSD license if I
> use a (slightly) different name, like "Simplified-BSD-3-Clause" or
> "BSD-3-Clause-alike".
My objection is that those imply too strong a connection with the
licenses published by BSD, and further imply that they are as well-known
and as well-studied in their effects.
That implication is false. The name should therefore not give that
implication, by avoiding entirely the “BSD” label.
> If the text is identical, one would use the predefined short names;
> reversely that means that if it is not a predefined short name, that
> it is not the identical text.
I'm advising to make that much clearer by using a name that (correctly)
implies a custom license that is not widely known in its effects.
--
\ “I went to the hardware store and bought some used paint. It |
`\ was in the shape of a house.” —Steven Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: