Re: [libposix-development] The BSD license

[Andreas K. <akr...@go...>]

Hi,
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Henrique Almeida <hd...@gm...> wrote:

>  It would be perfect if libposix had a single license. This is
> specially important for companies that would like to use libposix. The
> 3 clause license seemed okay for me, but both NetBSD and FreeBSD use a
> two clause license. The difference is the clause "Neither the name of
> the <organization> nor the names of its contributors may be used to
> endorse or promote products derived from this software without
> specific prior written permission." Since we're not a defined
> organization, we could skip that too. We have a few choices:
>
>  - Keep with the 3 clause license. We could define the "libposix
> group" just to keep with the "non endorsement" restriction. As long as
> we don't actually copy and paste code, I think it's safe to, at least
> read other BSD code (I'm not a lawyer, though). :-P
>  - Change to a 2 clause license. In this case, we can freely copy and
> paste NetBSD and FreeBSD code, for example.
>  - Allow mixing of all BSD-like licenses (that are compatible with GPL
> and are not copyleft). Not the ideal world, but no lawyer would die
> either.


I'm fine with either 2- or 3-clause BSD license. Since 2-clause is pretty
much the standard in the BSD world these days (besides ISC license which is
OpenBSD's preferred license), it's probably wise to stick to it.

Also an interesting source regarding licenses:
http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
"The ISC copyright is functionally equivalent to a two-term BSD copyright
with language removed that is made unnecessary by the Berne convention."

Personally, I'm fine with either of these.

Regards,
Andreas