Subject: Re: A BSD-like license that isn't template-based
From: Dave H <dmh@dmh.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:32:11 +0000

On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:41:23PM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
> 
> Why do you feel that there is a need for a non-template BSD-like 
> license? Is there a problem with the current templatized licenses I am 
> not aware of?

I don't see a problem, as such, but I prefer the non-template approach
-- it strikes me as easier.  However given that there are countless
BSD-derived licenses now in use, and there doesn't seem to be much
support for a non-template version on this list, I'd concede there's no
point in creating Yet Another Software License.

> If you need to simply refer to a license by name instead of including 
> the full text, simply say "This software is copyright blah blah blah. 
> See the file LICENSE for complete license and copyright information".

You are of course quite correct, but equally I think it's clearer if you
can refer to the specific license by name.  This becomes especially true
when a project incorporates code from disparate sources and a plethora
of mostly-identical licenses emerges.

Regards,

Dave
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3