Differentiating BSD-style licenses (was: DEP5: Machine-readable debian/copyright (the paperwork))
Carsten Hey <email@example.com> writes:
> It's might not be obvious for all which BSD licenses are meant by "BSD"
> and "FreeBSD", thus I propose appending " (3-clause BSD)" and
> respectively " (2-clause BSD)" to their descriptions.
That's even more ambiguous, though. It doesn't say *which* clauses; any
three-clause license similar to a BSD license could be “3-clause BSD”.
I've advocated making mnemonic descriptors for the particular clauses,
e.g. “attribution”, “no endorsement”, etc. Those have the disadvantage
of not being well-known, but the advantage (compared to simply counting
the clauses) that at least a guess as to which clauses are being
referenced will likely be right.
\ “Unix is an operating system, OS/2 is half an operating system, |
`\ Windows is a shell, and DOS is a boot partition virus.” —Peter |
_o__) H. Coffin |