On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Gervase Markham <[email protected]> wrote: >.. > However, it seems that the latest version of the license, version 4.3, is > available under a straight BSD license: > http://www.daemonology.net/bsdiff/ > >> However 'BSD Protection License' does not appear in that list. >> >> There is a 2002 thread about this license on >> [email protected], but it doesn't appear to have led to a >> conclusion. > > Indeed not. I think it's probably an open source licence, ..
I agree; and it has some nice features. > But, given the above, I suggest we fix this problem by importing the latest > version, rather than debating the license. but debating licenses is so much fun... ;-) >> The JPEG 'license' is also not on the OSI list. > > That is more surprising. > >> http://www.evolane.com/software/etcl/3rdparty/jpeg-LICENSE.txt > > It seems to me that this license is a (perhaps less clear) rewrite of the > 3-clause BSD licence - include this notice, don't use my name, no warranty. Not quite; it requires that the documentation credits them. We do this down the bottom of about:license. >> If so, perhaps this can be noted on the licensing page? >> >> Is bullet 6 a hard and fast rule? > >> >> >> If there is another chunk of code which is available under a JPEG-like >> license, which is basically 'as-is' but with a mandatory documentation >> notice, would licensing require that it first goes through the OSI >> approval process? > > It depends what you mean by a "mandatory documentation notice". If you mean > a 4-clause-BSD-like advertising clause: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#4-clause_license_.28original_.22BSD_License.22.29 > (clause 3 in that text) > > then that has been deemed to be not open source compatible. Hmm. I mean: like the JPEG credit-required clause. This is sort of like invariants in GFDL, and attribution in CC-BY. > Does that answer your question? It would help if you could be more specific > about which code we are talking about. The code is licensed GPL-only, and the copyright holders are not likely to look favourably on LGPL or MPL. I'm trying to get my head around what licenses would be acceptable for Mozilla 'Product Code', in order that I can suggest appropriate licenses to them. -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
