For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)

[John Cowan]

David Woolley scripsit:

> To achieve its intended effect, it needs to be codified, or given as a
> dual grant of LGPL and 3 term BSD. What it seems to be saying is that
> the code may be used in non-GPL software, but in that case the 
> advertising clause is mandatory (which means it will not be used unless 
> essential).

I can't make heads or tails of any of this thread.  The 3-clause BSD
license doesn't have the advertising clause: the advertising clause was
the 4th clause that UCB dropped back in 1999.  (Some folks are still
using it.)

The four original clauses are the source clause, the binary clause, the
no-endorsement clause, and the advertising clause.  AFAIK, "3-clause
BSD" always means without the advertising clause, and "2-clause BSD"
always means without the advertising and no-endorsement clauses.
Dropping the source or binary clauses wouldn't leave much of a license,
and I don't know of anyone who drops the no-endorsement clause but
leaves the advertising clauses intact.

So what is all this about?  The 3-clause BSD is just as GPL-compatible
as the MIT/X license.

-- 
John Cowan   http://ccil.org/~cowan    cowan at ccil.org
In might the Feanorians / that swore the unforgotten oath
brought war into Arvernien / with burning and with broken troth.
and Elwing from her fastness dim / then cast her in the waters wide,
but like a mew was swiftly borne, / uplifted o'er the roaring tide.
        --the Earendillinwe