4 ms·
That's not the new clause, that's from the BSD license. The new clause is the last one in the list, the one about not removing the license enforcement code.
by almost 18y ago
That's not the new clause, that's from the BSD license.
The new clause is the last one in the list, the one about not removing the license enforcement code.
- gojomo 18y agoYou're right; <strike>but they've even reworded that clause.</strike> I'm correcting my grandparent comment to reflect reality, with a note that it's been changed.
- artost 18y agoIn what way have they reworded the clause? As far as I can see it is exactly the same as in http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
- gojomo 18y agoYou're right too. I mistakenly referred to a non-parameterized generic version of a "BSD style" license to make that statement, as here: http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license My initial writing was also confusing the 'simplified BSD license' used by FreeBSD (without the "no-endorsement" clause) with the full classic BSD. And this is another reason to hate license proliferation. Remembering all the "BSD, except X" variations is an error-prone pain. Let's be coding and sharing, not lawyering.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]