Discuss: BSD Protection License

Colin Percival colin.percival at wadham.ox.ac.uk
Wed Mar 13 15:18:03 UTC 2002

At 06:36 13/03/2002 -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
>Quoting Colin Percival (colin.percival at wadham.ox.ac.uk):
> > There is a tradition that once a project has adopted a given license
> > (eg, the BSD operating systems and the BSD license), further work is
> > incorporated under the same license.  This merely formalizes that.
>You don't _need_ special licence terms to accomplish that.

   As I said, there is a *tradition*.  Traditions aren't always followed,
and the last thing I want is for a project to fork into two incompatible
versions based on their licenses.  Thus my distinction between
closed-source and open-source derivatives -- a closed-source derivative
does not pose a danger, because it won't attract "open source coders".
   Incidentally, I see nothing wrong with BSDPL code being incorporated
into works distributed under other licenses, as long as the BSDPL is
replaced with a notice to the effect of "don't make changes here,
contribute them back to the original project instead" -- this would
fall under section 3, "modification and redistribution under closed
license".  (Hmm.  I might need to rewrite things to clarify that.)

Colin Percival

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

More information about the License-discuss mailing list