Dispelling BSD License Misconceptions

AlanS2002 writes "Groklaw is hosting an article by Brendan Scott which looks at the misconceptions surrounding the BSD license. From the article: 'We observe that there exists a broad misconception that the BSD permits the licensing of BSD code and modifications of BSD code under closed source licenses. In this paper we put forward an argument to the effect that the terms of the BSD require BSD code and modifications to BSD code to be licensed under the terms of the BSD license. We look at some possible consequences and observe that this licensing requirement could have serious impacts on the unwary.'"

Comments

Arcane

[radtea]

They seem to be saying this:

1) The BSD license clause 3 says the FOLLOWING conditions must apply.

2) They wonder if "apply" means "apply" or something else, like "apple" or "penguin".

3) They note that one of the FOLLOWING conditions is the warranty.

4) They wonder if one of the PRECEDING conditions (clause 2) ought to be handled the same way as the the warranty.

In a narrowly construed legal sense they may have a point.

In a human being sense, if anyone has ever wondered why we all hate lawyers and think they are wankers, this is pretty much it.

It is, of course, impossible to create an unambigous document, and yet lawyers pretend to be able to do this, and then make a fortune out of their failures.

No one, ever, anywhere, has ever had any question as to what the BSD license means. So clearly there is a valid and correct reading that means what everyone knows it to mean. So clearly any reading that completely reverses that meaning must be making a mistake somewhere.

This post, by the way, can be interpreted as a love sonnet addressed to a musk ox, if you look at it closely enough and make up the meaning of a sufficiently large number of words, and wonder when I say, "it is, of course, impossible to create an unambigous document" if I really mean, "misey were the borogoves, and the momrath outrabe."