Questions about the two-clause BSD license
pimmhogeling at gmail.com
Mon Oct 19 16:26:40 UTC 2009
> If they distribute the source code with the binary, that is sufficient.
But, as you said and I assumed, if they provide a way to get the
source code (without actually including it in the same package as the
binary form) that is not sufficient. In my opinion it should be.
> If they don't, they should include the license in the binary
> distribution. I don't find that requirement unreasonable, nor is it
> particularly hard to comply with.
I agree. I don't find the requirements in the GPLv3 unreasonable or
unreasonably hard to comply with either. I just don't want to obligate
licensees to do things that aren't necessary for the particular
situation, or things that are pointless in the first place. The fact
that companies don't mind such obligations doesn't change that. We
seem to agree that including the license itself with the binary form
is pointless because it doesn't actually have any effect, though it is
required by the license.
Note that I'm not trying to be a wiseass here. If I was confident that
removing half the license is a good idea, I would've done so. I'm
trying to understand why the license is as it is, and what would the
consequences of leaving parts out would be.
More information about the License-discuss