Discuss: BSD Protection License

phil hunt philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk
Tue Mar 12 16:48:20 UTC 2002

On Tuesday 12 March 2002  3:53 pm, Colin Percival wrote:
> At 15:37 12/03/2002 +0000, phil hunt wrote:
> >OSD, para 1: The license shall not restrict any party from
> >selling or giving away the software [...]
> >
> >License, 3 (c): The license under which the derivative work
> >is distributed must expressly prohibit the distribution of
> >further derivative works.
> >
> >This restricts people from selling or giving away the software,
> >because it imposes a restrictive term on how they can give it
> >away.
>    2. Verbatim copies.
>    You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program as you
> receive it...

Good point. It appears I was wrong here.

>    There are no restrictions on how licensed code can be copied
> or distributed; the only restrictions are on how derivative works
> are distributed.
>    It seems as though there might be some confusion (see David
> Johnson's earlier note on this) resulting from the juxtaposition
> of sections 2,3, and 4, each of which states that "You may...".
> I don't personally see any problem here -- section 2 grants you
> some rights, section 3 grants you some rights, section 4 grants
> you some rights -- but would people be happier if I explicitly
> pointed out that the three sections cover different actions,
> and obviously the restrictions attached to each section only
> apply to that section?

Yes. If the current wording is confusing, it is obviously better
to word it in a way people don't find ambiguous.

<"><"><"> Philip Hunt <philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk> <"><"><">
"I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically 
advantageous for him to believe." 
                        -- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael
                              Portillo, on soc.history.what-if
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

More information about the License-discuss mailing list