David Johnson wrote: >My suggestion is to simply the the BSD license as is. [...] >Although the standard MIT license doesn't have anything about advertisements >or promotions, the new BSD license does. So just use the BSD license. OK, thank you for the suggestion. I adopted that: http://quantlib.org/license.html
I started from the in the opensource.org BSD template (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html) then I modified the following sentences: 1) "Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors" 2) "IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE" into 1a) "Neither the name of the copyright holders nor the names of the QuantLib Group and its contributors" 2a) "IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR CONTRIBUTORS" I think that the word REGENTS in the sentence#2 is just a typo. Isn't it? Should I still submit the resulting QuantLib License to [EMAIL PROTECTED]? >The license holders' names should already be in the copyright line. If >"QuantLib Group" >is not the legal copyright holder, then you need to change it. I did that, then I placed the developers names into the "AUTHORS" file: that is I listed RiskMap developers as authors, even if the copyright of their code is own by their employeer. Is it OK? Karsten M. Self wrote: >Note that the Apache license isn't GPL compatible. I'm not sure if this >is or isn't a goal of the QuantLib project, but the issue should be >considered. It is a goal. Thank you for your warning One more consideration: I started from the FSF Xfree86-style license suggestion (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html), then I tried to adopt the OSI certified license that had the most similar wording, that is the MIT license, finally I'm settling for BSD and I will have to get back to FSF for GPL compatibility certification. Would the OSI board consider to ask FSF to suggest the opensource.org BSD template for Non-Copylefted Free Software? ciao -- Nando -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
