2-clause and 3-clause are quite similar for this purpose as they differ only in a clause about endorsement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#2-clause_license_.28.22Simplified_BSD_License.22_or_.22FreeBSD_License.22.29
My interpretation of http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html is that both are "authorized licenses". The example at http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html also supports this since it refers to 3-clause. On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Márton Balassi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to add a dependency that is licensed under the 3-clause BSD > License. The ASF legal FAQ only mentions the 2-clause version as compatible > with the Apache License. > > Could someone please clarify the situation for me?
