Three new proposed OSD terms

John Cowan jcowan at
Fri Mar 4 04:19:18 UTC 2005

David A. Wheeler scripsit:

>   Perens recommends GPL, LGPL, BSD-new, MPL, and the MIT licenses,
>   and he recommends MIT over BSD-new (due to simplicity arguments).
>   That's still not a bad list:  GPL, LGPL, MIT, BSD-new, MPL (or
>   some variant).

Why both MIT and BSD-new (aka 3-clause BSD)?

>   If you must, add the Artistic license.

I wouldn't ever *recommend* the ArtL.  It's a horrible mess.

>   So how do you pick the recommended list?  I think the short answer
>   is, use popularity as your guide, both in lines of code and # of projects.

I can't agree.  Other virtues of licenses include well-draftedness,
clarity, templateability, and the presence of post-1995 concerns.
Licenses may be popular simply because they've been around a long time.

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies!    John Cowan <jcowan at>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,      
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,      
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

More information about the License-discuss mailing list