<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>(re-sent due to wrong list settings)<br>
</p>
<p>Hello and happy new year;
</p>
<br>
On 06/01/2020 00:43, Russell Nelson wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">On 12/10/19 10:07
AM, pfg at FreeBSD.org (Pedro Giffuni) wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">Hello;
<br>
<br>
While doing a sweep through the FreeBSD code tree, I found yet
another
<br>
variant of the BSD license which I have dubbed BSD-1-Clause
license:
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Re-license it under the BSD LIcense and don't look back. </blockquote>
<br>
The reason why I wanted as legacy is that I don't have any power of
the license. The authors disappeared from the net and even if they
were available, the company has changed hand a couple of times so
it's unlikely anyone can push such a change through. Pushing even
simple changes (like dropping "All Rights Reserved" over an existing
license is likely an impossible task.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">We really need to
move to just one BSD[123]/MIT license (actually Apache-2.0 but
baby steps), and for any software that has a compatible license,
re-license it under that license, and tell the original author
that's necessary in order for it to be distributed. It will
preserve freedom and reduce license evaluation cost. Some
companies really <b class="moz-txt-star"><span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>do<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b>
require a legal analysis of any license they want to use. Reducing
the number of licenses they have to look at will save them money,
and increase their use. More importantly it will increase their
reliance on open source software.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
While we already have such a policy for new files, for existing code
we are focusing our efforts on reducing license restrictions, rather
than imposing new restrictions on software that is reasonably
licensed. We still have plenty of code under 3-clause, 4-clause and
even 5 or more clause BSD-like licenses that is not going to be
changed anytime soon.
<br>
<br>
I cannot speak for the FreeBSD project but it is not in our agenda
to impose licensing based on lies. Can you give an example on how
adding the second clause of the BSD license is "necessary in order
for it to be distributed"?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">Let's be clear here:
we want people to acquire freedom, we want people to enjoy
freedom, and we want people to advance freedom. Having multiple
nearly identical licenses hinders that goal.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Off topic: you cannot force people to be free. Part of their freedom
is indeed to be able to add or remove clauses to their license
according to their needs. Have you ever wondered why people keep
coming up with new licenses even when there is an existing variety
of choices? Yes, you can try to reduce the number of recognized
licenses but that is not going to stop people from using new
licensing schemes.
<br>
<br>
Pedro.
<br>
</body>
</html>