But the two clause BSD license (the one I will personally use) doesn't contain that clause! So basically they are the same I think.
The issue is probably that if someone from say ACME Computer Corp contributed, the copyright might be controlled by their company, in which case, they would not want their company name to be used to promote said library. Then they might not use BSD two clause. We'll just have to wait and see what happens. I suspect it would be foolish to only allow contributions under some particular variant of the BSD license. This could be a very relevant issue for some people. But not one we will likely have any control over. Bill. On 16 April 2010 18:19, Sergey Bochkanov <[email protected]> wrote: >> The MIT license is more prestigious. >> -- William > > From Wikipedia: > >> The MIT License is similar to the 3-clause "modified" BSD license, >> except that the BSD license contains a notice prohibiting the use of >> the name of the copyright holder in promotion. > > From that we can conclude that MIT License is more free than BSD, > because it doesn't take away "the freedom to use copyright holder name > in promotion". > > -- > With best regards, > Sergey mailto:[email protected] > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "mpir-devel" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en.
