On 16 April 2010 19:32, Antony Vennard <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Well I was planning on saying it is preferred and leaving it up to contributors. The imperative here is to get more regular contribution, so whatever works really. > >> >>> >>> 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... But people do this all the time. > >> >> 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. > > -- 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.
