On 11/08/2013 11:36 AM, David Woolley wrote:
It's very common. Microsoft use a lot of BSD code and I'd be surprised if they hadn't modified it, and therefore become one of the copyright owners. I hadn't noticed Microsoft being shy about branding their products.
If they modified it they'd become one of "contributors", so they fall under it anyway, in theory.
In practice, on BSD projects I've worked with, the common understanding for the 3rd clause is simply: if you derive your product from it, don't say we endorse you.
It doesn't apply between "us", the expectation is to apply to "products derived from this software".
The same is assured by common sense as well as trademarks use. So one can argue the clause as a license provision is close to useless or overdoing it. I don't know; I believe sometimes it's important to people to see it spelled out in their license.
This is exactly the point of replacing "organization" with "copyright holder": most likely they are already. At least they assert some copyright on the distribution. And if in a particular case people really want another name or wording in the 3rd clause, they can and do tweak the license anyway.
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
