[License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

Massimo Zaniboni massimo.zaniboni at asterisell.com
Fri Jan 13 22:00:18 UTC 2017

On 13/01/2017 20:29, John Cowan wrote:

> When the BSD/ISC/MIT licenses say that
> you must include the text of the license in derivative works, that's
> exactly what is meant: the words of the license must be provided as part
> of the documentation. It does not mean that they must be incorporated
> into the license of the derived work, which can be whatever you want.

Good point. At end of this discussion, I will modify the post putting in 
the header the correct interpretation, or a link to this discussion, so 
my fault view can be useful also for others.

My answer to Chuck is appropiate also for you: if you read BSD and ISC 
without knowing in advance that they are permissive license, we can not 
apply my interpretation of terms (I concede this) but frankly I can not 
apply also your interpretation with enough confidence. Is a 50/50. BSD 
and ISC uses (IMHO) too much vague terms.

No problems with MIT, GPL and Apache.


More information about the License-discuss mailing list