At 20:07 11/03/2002 -0800, Andy Tai wrote: >While this license probably is open source, it is >misnamed (by using the term "BSD" in its name). It is >not a BSD license because it does NOT always "permit >improvements to be used wherever they will help, >without idealogical or metallic constraint." For >example, it does not allow the use of such code in >GPLed software.
Of course this isn't a BSD license; if I wanted a BSD license, I'd be using the BSD license. I maintain, however, that it incorporates the spirit of BSD: That it permits both infinite chains of derivative works, and that it permits closed-source derivatives. The fault, IMHO, for this license being incompatible with the GPL lies entirely with the GPL, since this license is entirely more liberal than the GPL. Indeed, take the GPL, remove some of the fluff (stuff about patents, etc.), and add a clause permitting closed-source derivative works, and you get this license. Colin Percival -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3