On 04/16/2010 07:20 PM, Bill Hart wrote: > On 16 April 2010 19:10, Antony Vennard <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. > > No because one of the conditions is to retain the list of conditions > in redistributions, including the third clause.
I thought it was too simple. 2-clause it is then. > >> >> 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. > > The main thing missing is any form of patent protection. When using > these licenses, one must simply request that people make known any > patents which affect the project, and all code which might infringe > has to be removed. You also ask your contributors to not contribute > stuff over which they, or their companies are likely to hold a patent. > But in practice, this seems to work for people using these licenses. > They just agree to remove code if it becomes a problem. > > Of course there is nothing stopping someone from having a patent over > something that is implemented under the GPL either. But the GPL does > stop the contributor from contributing code over which they hold a > patent. And if they do, they can't charge a royalty for its use. > > Come to think of it, now I am confused. How is BSD licensed code > compatible with the GPL under these circumstances? If I merged BSD > licensed code into my GPL'd project, how do I know the original > contributor of the BSD code didn't take out a patent. I don't suppose you would, but the condition of merging into the GPL would be that you had to take the patent out or surrender your right to charge for it. I see what you mean though, you ought to be able to GPL BSD licensed code and it should just work(tm), which it wouldn't... > > Bill. > >> >> 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. >> >> > -- 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.
