If I've got this right, couldn't we argue it like this: * Person A from ACME Computer Corp writes some code for bsd-nt (or whatever it is called) and wishes to contribute it. * The company themselves control the copyright but do not wish to have their brand associated with bsd-nt. * However, they *can still contribute*. They effectively license the code to us under the three-clause BSD license. * Their code is then integrated into the source tree without reference to said company name (making it clear it was the individual contributing or whatever the acceptable terms are). * We are then free to license the whole (the library) under the two-clause BSD license because we are not breaking the condition of the licensed contribution and the rest of the license is essentially identical.
Does that work? Wikipedia comes to the rescue again for this area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_software_licenses Most interestingly is the ISC license, which basically *is* the two clause bsd license re-written to be clearer in meaning. In my opinion, the only thing missing from the BSD license is copyleft - that said, I can live without it, really - I'd rather use the BSD license than the LGPL or even worse the GPL. Antony On 04/16/2010 06:32 PM, Bill Hart wrote: > 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.
