[License-discuss] BSD, MIT [was Re: Draft of new OSI licenses landing page; please review.]

Jeremy C. Reed reed at reedmedia.net
Thu Apr 5 21:10:35 UTC 2012

On Thu, 5 Apr 2012, John Cowan wrote:

> Jeremy C. Reed scripsit:
> > "Superseded" should not imply that the projects that actively use them 
> > have dropped them because they are inferior or replaced with a newer or 
> > different license. They may have been superseded by you, but generally 
> > they are not by the existing developers (copyright owners).
> In all cases, the "superseded" licenses have been superseded by
> later versions from the same source.  They are the APSL 1.0, CPL 1.0,
> Artistic 1.0, Eiffel Forum 1.0, Plan 9, MPL 1.0 and 1.1, OSL 1.0, and
> the Reciprocal PL 1.0.
> Likewise, the "retired" licenses have been abandoned by their stewards:
> they are the Intel Open SL, the Jabber Open SL, the Mitre CVW, and
> the SISSL.
> None of these have a place on the main list$, and do not appear on Karl's
> draft list either.


I was responding to the earlier suggestion of moving BSD and MIT to the 
redundant or superseded lists.

Using "BSD" generically can be confusing. Even the CSRG code under 
copyright of The Regents of the University of California had at least 
four different BSD licenses (1987, 1988, 1991, 1999). And then there are 
the derivates of these. Some of these could be considered "superseded" 
when a owner made changes (such as the "advertising" clause removal 
specifically for the CSRG BSD code).

(I am authoring a detailed book about Western Electric, AT&T, BSD 
licensing... currently around 200 pages with over 75 interviews already 
done left to integrate.)

  Jeremy C. Reed

echo 'EhZ[h ^jjf0%%h[[Zc[Z_W$d[j%Xeeai%ZW[ced#]dk#f[d]k_d%' | \
  tr            '#-~'            '\-.-{'

More information about the License-discuss mailing list