Re: BSD 3 Clause?
This is published now: https://community.kde.org/index.php?title=Policies%2FLicensing_Policy&type=revision&diff=95548&oldid=93212 Lukas Sommer Am Sa., 31. Dez. 2022 um 16:23 Uhr schrieb Lukas Sommer : > Looks good. Would be great if you could add links from "as listed below" >> to >> the BSD-2-Clause entry, so that one can easily jump there. >> > > Done: > https://community.kde.org/index.php?title=Policies%2FLicensing_Policy%2FDraft&type=revision&diff=95468&oldid=95465 >
Re: BSD 3 Clause?
> > Looks good. Would be great if you could add links from "as listed below" > to > the BSD-2-Clause entry, so that one can easily jump there. > Done: https://community.kde.org/index.php?title=Policies%2FLicensing_Policy%2FDraft&type=revision&diff=95468&oldid=95465
Re: BSD 3 Clause?
On Samstag, 31. Dezember 2022 11:04:44 CET Lukas Sommer wrote: > If I understand correctly, BSD-3-Clause is allowed for both, public-API > code and CMake code, but unless you must use it (because of upstream > license or other reasons), use BSD-2-Clause instead. In either case, other > existing BSD license variants must never be used. Exactly. > If so, I would propose this clarification to the license wiki page: > > https://community.kde.org/index.php?title=Policies%2FLicensing_Policy%2FDraf > t&type=revision&diff=95465&oldid=95464 Looks good. Would be great if you could add links from "as listed below" to the BSD-2-Clause entry, so that one can easily jump there. Regards, Ingo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: BSD 3 Clause?
If I understand correctly, BSD-3-Clause is allowed for both, public-API code and CMake code, but unless you must use it (because of upstream license or other reasons), use BSD-2-Clause instead. In either case, other existing BSD license variants must never be used. If so, I would propose this clarification to the license wiki page: https://community.kde.org/index.php?title=Policies%2FLicensing_Policy%2FDraft&type=revision&diff=95465&oldid=95464 Best regards Lukas Sommer Am Sa., 24. Dez. 2022 um 14:17 Uhr schrieb Adriaan de Groot : > On Wednesday, 21 December 2022 10:12:03 CET Ingo Klöcker wrote: > > So, unless you must use BSD-3-Clause, please stick to BSD-2-Clause. > > This, twice. > > Keep in mind, also, that SPDX lists a half-dozen BSD-3-Clause variants. Do > not > use them at all. If you must use a BSD-3-Clause (because upstream, or > whatever), use only this one https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause.html . > > Prefer https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause.html in all cases where a > simple > permissive license with no patent language is desired. > > [ade] >
Re: BSD 3 Clause?
On Wednesday, 21 December 2022 10:12:03 CET Ingo Klöcker wrote: > So, unless you must use BSD-3-Clause, please stick to BSD-2-Clause. This, twice. Keep in mind, also, that SPDX lists a half-dozen BSD-3-Clause variants. Do not use them at all. If you must use a BSD-3-Clause (because upstream, or whatever), use only this one https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause.html . Prefer https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause.html in all cases where a simple permissive license with no patent language is desired. [ade] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: BSD 3 Clause?
> > Now does this mean that BSD-3-Clause may be used instead of BSD-2-Clause > for CMake code or that it must not be used? Can we clarify the wiki page? > 3 clause just adds "Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.". It's fine to use in KDE software but I'd advise against it as it just adds an additional restriction that needs cared about which isn't of much benefit. If you'd like to add a clarification to the licence policy do propose amendments here or at https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft Jonathan
Re: BSD 3 Clause?
On Mittwoch, 21. Dezember 2022 07:33:18 CET Lukas Sommer wrote: > I have a question about BSD-3-Clause. > > https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy says: > > 13. CMake code must be licenced under the BSD licence listed below > > And: > > BSD-2-Clause > > > > SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause > > SPDX-FileCopyrightText: > > > > A third requirement is sometimes included: BSD-3-Clause > > > > The advertising clause requiring mention in adverts must never be > > included. The Facebook patent grant must never be included. > > Now does this mean that BSD-3-Clause may be used instead of BSD-2-Clause > for CMake code or that it must not be used? Can we clarify the wiki page? I wondered about the same when checking how to license Python code. In the end I decided to use BSD-2-Clause because it didn't see a reason to use BSD-3- Clause. Things might be different if you want to include existing code that is BSD-3-Clause licensed. Re-reading the above I understand that BSD-3-Clause can be used instead of BSD-2-Clause. But I also read this as "Use BSD-2-Clause unless you have very good reasons to use BSD-3-Clause." because using BSD-3-Clause will make sharing code within KDE more complicated since one has to take care to keep BSD-3-Clause if the source of the copied code was BSD-3-Clause licensed. So, unless you must use BSD-3-Clause, please stick to BSD-2-Clause. Regards, Ingo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
