Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:43:04 +0100 From: Danny Pansters <danny@ricin.com> To: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSD License "Innocence" Clause Proposal Message-ID: <200603222343.04929.danny@ricin.com> In-Reply-To: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNIEIHFDAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> References: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNIEIHFDAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 22 March 2006 17:57, you wrote: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > >[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Danny Pansters > >Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 2:57 PM > >To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > >Subject: Re: BSD License "Innocence" Clause Proposal > > > >On Sunday 19 March 2006 23:16, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > >> I'm not sure if I should start advocating the idea here. > >> Some people must've had this thought before I ever > >> did, I hope they will support me. > >> > >> We need a special clause in the license we release > >> our work under. I'm not a lawyer, but I understand that > >> it will be very hard to devise and formulate. Basically, > >> it should state that under no circumstances and under > >> no legislation should ever any entity be punished for > >> breaking the license terms. > >> > >> I just can't sleep tight when a man can get sued and > >> prosecuted because he copied a piece of my work > >> without mentioning my name, whatever his motives > >> are. At the same time, I respect my work and the work > >> of other, and appreciate a way to state that names > >> should be mentioned. > >> > >> So we need a "law", that can be followed and can > >> be broken, but can't be enforced. > >> > >> What do you think, guys? > > > >I think that's called public domain. > > > >Since the BSD license like GPL defaults to normal copyright if > >not followed or > >accepted it's at *your* descretion whether or not someone > >can/will be sued, > >and no one elses. > > Nope. The real BSD license gives copyrights to the University of > California, Berkeley. Mainly for historical reasons because BSD > originated from there, but there is a legal reason also. You see, if > I Ted Mittelstaedt release software copyright Ted Mittelstaedt, even > if I give everyone rights to use it, I still retain copyright and > later on I can change the terms of that copyright. That is what the Well, yes that's what I meant with BSDL in this context, as it is used by individual authors currently. > courts have said I can do. As a result of this, people, when they use > my work commercially they will need to get me to sign a piece of paper. > If I'm not reachable, that's kind of hard. By giving the copyright > to the University, it assures any future entity that there will never > be any question of copyight rights to use the work since the UCB > obviously > isn't difficult to find, and is not likely to dry up and disappear. > > This is why FreeBSD is copyrighted The FreeBSD Project and > not the individual developers copyrights. > > If you retain your own copyright on the > work then your license might be a BSD-like license, but it's not > the BSD license. I'm not sure if I agree with this, it may boil down to "a" vs "the". The BSD(-like, if you like) license as used nowadays is normally one without the Regents involved. I'm not against calling that "a" BSD license though. You need to spell it out somewhere anyway so the difference in semantics doesn't matter much, the resulting LICENSE or COPYRIGHT text does of course. I may be more inclined to think of BSDL in terms of applicability/restrictions while yours is more in historical terms, but well, like I said, it's the terms you as an author grant that matter. Dan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200603222343.04929.danny>