[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110502124922.GA17994@openwall.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 16:49:22 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Unit tests
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 10:51:34AM +0200, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> The ISC license is widely used (BIND, new OpenBSD stuff...) and thus a
> lawyer has looked over it, which generally is not true for "own"
> licenses.
This makes sense, but I don't consider a BSD license with some clauses
removed an "own" license in this sense. Merely removing some
restrictive clauses should not result in any problems - e.g., the BSD
license was shortened from 4 clauses (original) to 2 clauses (FreeBSD),
and I like to remove these remaining 2 clauses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#2-clause_license_.28.22Simplified_BSD_License.22_or_.22FreeBSD_License.22.29
Basically, I propose that we use this, but remove the words "provided
that the following conditions are met" and remove the two conditions.
We may achieve the same by starting with the ISC license text (the
"and/or" revision of it) and removing "provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies".
In either case, we'll be able to say that the text that remains is the
complete permission text of either the BSD license or the ISC license;
the only things removed are purely restrictions.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
