3 ms·
> But I don't know if they have any legal control over the term as a trademark or anything, or if they just give their approval and grant the use of their logo.
by mjg59 11y ago
> But I don't know if they have any legal control over the term as a trademark or anything, or if they just give their approval and grant the use of their logo.
The term's entirely uncontrolled.
> Interestingly enough (for me anyway) the BSD style licenses don't seem.to meet their definition of "Open Source" but are approved anyway...
Hm. In what way?
- Nursie 11y agoWell their "Open Source Definition" here - http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd - seems pretty copyleft-ish to my reading, particularly clauses 2 and 7. I'm not trying to say BSD licensed stuff isn't open source, or anything ideologically driven at all (god forbid I start another license flamewar). Just seems a minor inconsistency. I may well just be reading it wrong.
- maxerickson 11y agoThe notable feature of copyleft is that it applies to derivatives. So for 7, some software that incorporated BSD licensed code under some additional terms might not meet the open source definition, but the BSD source project would. Copyleft requires that a derivative project be available under the same terms as the original work (or so, I guess some licenses might be mixable or whatever).
- mjg59 11y agoAh, right. It's possible to release BSD-licensed works in such a way that they're not open source, yes. But if you do receive the source code, the license grants you all the freedoms you require to be able to satisfy the open source definition.