Carsten Hey <cars...@debian.org> writes: > It's might not be obvious for all which BSD licenses are meant by "BSD" > and "FreeBSD", thus I propose appending " (3-clause BSD)" and > respectively " (2-clause BSD)" to their descriptions.
That's even more ambiguous, though. It doesn't say *which* clauses; any three-clause license similar to a BSD license could be “3-clause BSD”. I've advocated making mnemonic descriptors for the particular clauses, e.g. “attribution”, “no endorsement”, etc. Those have the disadvantage of not being well-known, but the advantage (compared to simply counting the clauses) that at least a guess as to which clauses are being referenced will likely be right. -- \ “Unix is an operating system, OS/2 is half an operating system, | `\ Windows is a shell, and DOS is a boot partition virus.” —Peter | _o__) H. Coffin | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
