Wondering if my license already exists

[Wilson, Andrew]

on Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 03:11:40PM -0400, Steve D. Perkins
(steve at steveperkins.net) wrote:
> Hello all -
> Here is the hypothetical license I would like to apply to my project:
> 
> /**************************************************
> <SOFTWARE>
> Copyright <YEAR>, <OWNER>
> 
> Permission is hereby granted to use this software in any manner, in 
> whole or in part, in original or modified form, subject to the
following 
> conditions:.
> 
>    - Users of this software must not misrepresent themselves as being
>      the original author of this software.  Any modification to this
>      software will result in a new and separate work that must not be
>      misrepresented as equivalent to this software.
> 
>    - The name of <SOFTWARE> or <OWNER> must not be used to imply
>      endorsement of any usage or modification of this software.
> 
>    - This software is provided by the copyright holders and
>      contributors "as is" and any express or implied warranties,
>      including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of
>      merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are
>      disclaimed.  In no event shall the copyright owner or
contributors
>      be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special,
>      exemplary, or consequential damages (including, but not limited
>      to, procurement of substitute goods or services; loss of use,
>      data, or profits; or business interruption) however caused and on
>      any theory of liability, whether in contract, strict liability,
or
>      tort (including negligence or otherwise) arising in any way out
of
>      the use of this software, even if advised of the possibility of
>      such damage.
> 
> **************************************************/
> 
> Can anyone tell me with reasonable assurance whether or not this
> license is functionally equivalent to any existing OSI-approved
> licenses?  

Steve, your proposed license is very close to the "new BSD" license
(without
the advertising clause).  I believe the only substantive difference is
that
your proposed license requires derivative works to be renamed.  If this
is important to you, please consider the Apache 2.0 license
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php).  Note that paragraph
6
of the Apache 2.0 license explicitly states that no license is granted
to use the trademarks, trade names, or product names of the Licensor.
I think this does exactly what you want.

Andy Wilson
Intel Open Source Technology Center