3 ms·

This raises some questions: * If Facebook is "changing" the BSD license, why is the BSD license included verbatim and in full? * Also, why does the PATENTS fi

This raises some questions: * If Facebook is "changing" the BSD license, why is the BSD license included verbatim and in full? * Also, why does the PATENTS file explicitly state that it is an "ADDITIONAL grant of patent rights"? * Why don't I see comments like the one I originally replied to being posted on articles pertaining to Apache? They have almost exactly the same wording in their statement. I'll believe claims of Facebook "changing the BSD license" when they actually change the BSD license.

loceng 12y ago
It's easier to piggyback on something, for practicality reasons, and perhaps to piggyback on the perception people have of it (maliciously or not). ADDITIONAL could simply mean added to, not necessarily extra or supplementary - added, as in, included with - an overlay of BSD. I agree, it'd be good if Facebook was more transparent as to what it all means. Stating that you'll believe it if they modify the actual BSD license, it's far more easy to take an existing - and generally accepted license - and then make an addition instead of making changes to it, no? So you don't have to call it something other than BSD?