incomplete set of BSD license types?

[Klaus Heinz-46]

Hi,

in pkgsrc/licenses I found "original-bsd" (4 clauses) and "modified-bsd"
(3 clauses) but nothing equivalent to the new NetBSD and FreeBSD
license with 2 clauses.

Which type am I supposed to use for a package with such a 2-clause
BSD license?

ciao
     Klaus

[Greg Troxel]

perhaps add "2-clause-bsd" ?

[Klaus Heinz-46]

Greg Troxel wrote:

> perhaps add "2-clause-bsd" ?

If there no objections, I will do that.

ciao
     Klaus

[Joerg Sonnenberger]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:04:46PM +0200, Klaus Heinz wrote:
> Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> > perhaps add "2-clause-bsd" ?
>
> If there no objections, I will do that.

Please don't. Add a note to modified-bsd that it covers both cases.
For practical purposes there is no difference and let's not artifically
make the process more complicated than necessary.

Joerg

[Aleksej Saushev-2]

Klaus Heinz <k.heinz@...> writes:

> Greg Troxel wrote:
>
>> perhaps add "2-clause-bsd" ?
>
> If there no objections, I will do that.

I remember hearing the opinion that with respect to pkgsrc, 2-clause and
3-clause BSD licences are essentially the same (do we do any promotion?).
In the light of this, do we really need separate 2-clause, 3-clause and
1-clause BSD-like licences?


--
HE CE3OH...

[Alistair Crooks]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:13:01AM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:04:46PM +0200, Klaus Heinz wrote:
> > Greg Troxel wrote:
> >
> > > perhaps add "2-clause-bsd" ?
> >
> > If there no objections, I will do that.
>
> Please don't. Add a note to modified-bsd that it covers both cases.
> For practical purposes there is no difference and let's not artifically
> make the process more complicated than necessary.

Au contraire - please add the license in, along with the other licenses
that we're missing.

The license scheme we have now does not scale (let's not go there), but that
is not an excuse to misrepresent an author's desired scheme for licensing
the software.

Alistair

[Greg Troxel]

Aleksej Saushev <asau@...> writes:

> Klaus Heinz <k.heinz@...> writes:
>
>> Greg Troxel wrote:
>>
>>> perhaps add "2-clause-bsd" ?
>>
>> If there no objections, I will do that.
>
> I remember hearing the opinion that with respect to pkgsrc, 2-clause and
> 3-clause BSD licences are essentially the same (do we do any promotion?).
> In the light of this, do we really need separate 2-clause, 3-clause and
> 1-clause BSD-like licences?

I think that as long as the licenses are clearly different and not
vastly numerous, it makes sense to add them.  The thing not to do, IMHO,
is add 10 licenses that use slightly different words but which pretty
much everyone agrees are equivalent in all practical senses.

This isn't about being faithful to the author, althought that's a valid
concern - it's about letting people be intentional about not installing
software with licenses they find objectionable.  If we can produce an
example of someone who finds one X11-type license ok and another not ok,
then we should talk about it.  If we can't, we're beyond the point of
useful.  I can't say that obviously 2-clause and 3-clause BSD are
equivalent, and that's only one more.

[Klaus Heinz-46]

Hi,

thanks to all who commented on the question of adding a 2-clause-bsd
file.

After reading the thread I decided to add the file because the license
does not just use slightly different words from the 3-clause BSD license
but adds a new clause to prohibit certain forms of promotion without
the copyright holders permission.

ciao
     Klaus