6 ms·
Because the second clause is the problem, not the third. The third clause in 3 clause BSD is: >Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its con
by papsosouid 13y ago
Because the second clause is the problem, not the third. The third clause in 3 clause BSD is:
>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.
- mhurron 13y agoRemove the offending clause and have a two clause BSD license with clauses 1 and 3. It's a license not an array, you can cut from the middle.
- shawnz 13y agoThe problem is that "2-clause BSD" is already a generally accepted term for referring to the BSD license with clause 3 removed. Such a license is effectively equivalent to the MIT and ISC licenses, though.
- pyre 13y agoYou have a "2 clause BSD" licence. What you call the resultant license is irrelevant. What matters is the text of the license. Heck, you could call it a "modified 3-clause BSD license, please see LICENSE" if that's what you want.
- dlitz 13y ago> You have a "2 clause BSD" licence. Come on, is saving face that important to you? "2-clause BSD" already has a well-accepted meaning. You might as well have said that GPL refers to "Gary's Perfect License"; After all, it's a GPL.
- pyre 13y agoI only commented because of the attitude that removing the second clause from the 3-clause BSD license was not an option because we already have a 2-clause BSD license.
- dlitz 13y agoFair enough. This thread started with "Why not 2-clause BSD", and I understood your comment as defending the use of "2-clause BSD" in a non-standard way.
- papsosouid 13y agoBut nobody suggested it wasn't an option. That is the point.
- papsosouid 13y agoTwo clause BSD is the name of a license. A different license would not be two clause BSD, even if it has two clauses.