Discuss: BSD Protection License

Colin Percival colin.percival at wadham.ox.ac.uk
Tue Mar 12 16:07:17 UTC 2002

At 20:07 11/03/2002 -0800, Andy Tai wrote:
>While this license probably is open source, it is
>misnamed (by using the term "BSD" in its name).  It is
>not a BSD license because it does NOT always "permit
>improvements to be used wherever they will help,
>without idealogical or metallic constraint." For
>example, it does not allow the use of such code in
>GPLed software.

   Of course this isn't a BSD license; if I wanted a
BSD license, I'd be using the BSD license.
   I maintain, however, that it incorporates the spirit
of BSD: That it permits both infinite chains of
derivative works, and that it permits closed-source
   The fault, IMHO, for this license being incompatible
with the GPL lies entirely with the GPL, since this
license is entirely more liberal than the GPL. Indeed,
take the GPL, remove some of the fluff (stuff about
patents, etc.), and add a clause permitting
closed-source derivative works, and you get this

Colin Percival

license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

More information about the License-discuss mailing list