Discuss: UoI/NCSA Open Source License

John Taylor McEntire jmcentir at ad.uiuc.edu
Mon Mar 18 22:24:24 UTC 2002

We have looked at the open source licenses available hoping to find one
that fits our needs.  Specifically, we wanted a license that is clear
and concise covering the grant and usage of the software.  Our desire
was not just to create a new license, but to help simplify the licensing
process.  What we are proposing is not redundancy, but by blending
aspects from both of these licenses we think we are adding clarity which
is an improvement, at least from our perspective.  Our goal is to make
it easier for the user to understand the rights being granted, how they
can use such rights, and requirements for such usage in distribution.

The opening paragraph in the MIT license clearly sets forth the grant of
the license - but isn't so clear on the aspect of redistribution.
However, the BSD license, which is less clear in regards to the rights
being granted, does a really good job setting forth concise conditions
for redistribution.  That's why we have utilized these two crucial
pieces together.  We have tried to create a clear roadmap for users to
know what rights they are granted and what they need to do for
redistribution.  We believe this will be an improvement for the
community rather than being merely redundant.

John McEntire

-----Original Message-----
From: David Johnson [mailto:david at usermode.org] 
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:40 PM
To: John Taylor McEntire; license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: Discuss: UoI/NCSA Open Source License

On Thursday 14 March 2002 01:26 pm, John Taylor McEntire wrote:

> Included as text to this e-mail is the University of Illinois/NCSA
> Source License for your review and consideration as an approved OSI
> source license.  This license is a combination of the already-approved
> MIT and BSD licenses.  However, the combined text is more explicit
> regarding the granted rights than either of the MIT or BSD licenses
> alone and therefore is easier to understand and more comprehensive.
> Thus, there's a reason to use it rather than one of its two
> predecessors.

I really don't know where to go with this one. I almost feel like I
recommend disapproval solely due to gross redundancy.

Is there any possible way you can user either the MIT or the BSD

David Johnson
pgp public key on website
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

More information about the License-discuss mailing list