Hi Lars, On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:49:02PM +0000, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > All of the below is now done, I've today done the final bits by > splitting BSD into BSD-[234]-clause and renaming some licenses to match > the names in SPDX. Reading over the present contents of http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/, I find the license descriptions to be quite ambiguous. The reason for avoiding the names "2-clause BSD" and "3-clause BSD" in general is that it does not specify *which* clauses have been dropped from the original BSD licenses, and at various times, various parties have chosen to drop *different* of the original four clauses. Indeed, if you compare with <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses>, you'll find that the most common "2-clause" reduction of the BSD license is the one used by FreeBSD; but the FreeBSD license is listed as a separate line item in the list of license short names. And the code that is actually copyright UC Berkeley has only ever been relicensed under a 3-clause license, not under a 2-clause license. I don't know that there need to be any normative changes to correct this, but I think there definitely need to be some clearer pointers to an external reference for the license definitions for these short names. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature