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

Re: BSD-2-Clause with 'in this position and unchanged' addition? libarchive



I fear there might be more than two versions of the BSD 2-clause license. The BSD licenses were not as strictly distributed and formalized as a lot of modern, complex, versioned licenses. Accordingly, I think it might be a little bit pointless to delineate between two of the nearly-equivalent 2-clause licenses when there are so many versions out there.

Regards,

Daniel J. Hakimi
B.S. Philosophy, RPI 2012
B.S. Computer Science, RPI 2012
J.D. Cardozo Law 2015


On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 1:35 PM Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 3, 2025 2:56:15 AM Mountain Standard Time Simon
Josefsson wrote:
> Hi
>
> While working on Tarsnap's that embeds a copy of 'libarchive' I noticed
> a discrepency in the BSD-2-Clause boiler plate of libarchive.
>
> Compare https://sources.debian.org/src/libarchive/3.7.4-4/libarchive/
archive.h
>
> ...
>  * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>  *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>  * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> ...
>
> with
>
> https://sources.debian.org/src/libarchive/3.7.4-4/libarchive/
archive_write_dis
> k_private.h
>
> ...
>  * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>  *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer
>  *    in this position and unchanged.
>  * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> ...
>
> Note the added line with 'in this position and unchanged'.
>
> I don't see this mentioned in debian/copyright which I assume is a
> problem that ought to be fixed:
>
> https://sources.debian.org/src/libarchive/3.7.4-4/debian/copyright
>
> The license seems similar in spirit to the BSD-2-Clause-first-lines
> license:
>
> https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause-first-lines.html
>
> The only classification of this variant that I can find is this one:
>
> https://scancode-licensedb.aboutcode.org/bsd-unchanged
>
> The FSF, OSI, and SPDX does not appear to recognize/discuss this
> variant, or at least I cannot find it on their sites.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1) Is the license DFSG-compliant?
>
> 2) Must the license text including that sentence be mentioned in
> debian/copyright?
>
> 3) Is it correct to use a 'BSD-2-Clause' keyword that expanded to a pure
> BSD-2-Clause license text (i.e., without the sentence), or must a new
> stanza (e.g., 'BSD-2-Clause-unchanged') be used that expands to the
> appropriate blurb include the missing sentence?
>
> I'm guessing Yes, Yes, and BSD-2-Clause-unchanged, but that would just
> be my opinion.

I agree with you in all three cases:  Yes, Yes, and BSD-2-Clause-unchanged (or
whatever you feel like calling it).

Thank you for being so diligent in checking the license text.

--
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org

Reply to: