On Mittwoch, 21. Dezember 2022 07:33:18 CET Lukas Sommer wrote: > I have a question about BSD-3-Clause. > > https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy says: > > 13. CMake code must be licenced under the BSD licence listed below > > And: > > BSD-2-Clause > > > > SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause > > SPDX-FileCopyrightText: <year> <name of author> <e-mail> > > > > A third requirement is sometimes included: BSD-3-Clause > > > > The advertising clause requiring mention in adverts must never be > > included. The Facebook patent grant must never be included. > > Now does this mean that BSD-3-Clause may be used instead of BSD-2-Clause > for CMake code or that it must not be used? Can we clarify the wiki page?
I wondered about the same when checking how to license Python code. In the end I decided to use BSD-2-Clause because it didn't see a reason to use BSD-3- Clause. Things might be different if you want to include existing code that is BSD-3-Clause licensed. Re-reading the above I understand that BSD-3-Clause can be used instead of BSD-2-Clause. But I also read this as "Use BSD-2-Clause unless you have very good reasons to use BSD-3-Clause." because using BSD-3-Clause will make sharing code within KDE more complicated since one has to take care to keep BSD-3-Clause if the source of the copied code was BSD-3-Clause licensed. So, unless you must use BSD-3-Clause, please stick to BSD-2-Clause. Regards, Ingo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.