Communication skills

[Zak Greant]

Aloha Chris, Greetings All,

On 11/15/07, Chris Travers <chris.travers at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, but I really think this is not the right time for this sort of
> decision.  I think analysis of politics in choosing names for licenses
> is beyond the scope of this process.   Any decision will
> offend/infuriate some people.
>
> Naming licenses after projects or organizations has never been an
> issue in the past.  After all the "New BSD" license is named after the
> Berkeley Software Distribution project.  Furthermore one has to wonder
> when projects are different from organizations.  What about the MIT
> License?  The Microsoft * License?  Why should we do this now?
>
> Here is my proposed solution:  Approve *the license* as the "FreeBSD
> License (also called the Simplified BSD License)"
>
> Any objections to this?

Yes.

FreeBSD has used more than one license in it's history (IIRC) and its
various components are not all coherently licensed.

We clearly understand the problems associated with naming a license
after an organization or product when there are multiple licenses that
could validly be called by that name.

I don't think that we need to repeat this mistake simply because it
has been made in the past.

Choosing the name, "Simplified BSD License" provides a relatively
clear description of what the license is - assuming that the audience
knows what the BSD license is.

-- 
Cheers!
--zak