Ole Streicher <oleb...@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
