• Another 2-clause BSD or a mistake?

    From David da Silva Polverari@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 17 01:20:01 2024
    Hello,

    In the midst of performing QA work on unworkable [1], I found the buf.c
    file with the following copyright notice on its header:

    -- >8 --
    Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
    are met:

    1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
    2. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products
    derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
    -- >8 --

    This is not the BSD 2-clause variant, as it includes the non-endorsement
    clause from the 3-clause one, and excludes the actual second clause.
    Does anyone know if that is actually a BSD variant, and if so, what its
    name is? If it is not a BSD variant, how should it be dealt with/named?

    [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/unworkable

    Regards,

    David

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Soren Stoutner@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 16 22:40:16 2024
    Copy: [email protected] (David da Silva Polverari)

    I do not know if this is a variant that has a common name or has been used in other places, but if not you would simply give it a custom name and include
    the full text, perhaps with a comment to make it easy for others to
    understand. For example:

    Files: buf.c
    Copyright: 2003 Jean-Francois Brousseau <[email protected]>
    2006, 2007, 2008 Niall O'Higgins <[email protected]>
    License: BSD-custom-2-clause
    Comment:
    The copyright holders reserve all rights.
    They use a custom BSD 2-clause license that has the first and third clauses
    from the standard BSD-3-clause license.

    License: BSD-custom-2-clause
    Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
    modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
    are met:
    .
    1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
    2. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products
    derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
    .
    THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES,
    INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
    AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL
    THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
    EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
    PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS;
    OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY,
    WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR
    OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF
    ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

    On Saturday, March 16, 2024 4:54:25 PM MST David da Silva Polverari wrote:
    Hello,

    In the midst of performing QA work on unworkable [1], I found the buf.c
    file with the following copyright notice on its header:

    -- >8 --
    Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
    are met:

    1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
    2. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products
    derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
    -- >8 --

    This is not the BSD 2-clause variant, as it includes the non-endorsement clause from the 3-clause one, and excludes the actual second clause.
    Does anyone know if that is actually a BSD variant, and if so, what its
    name is? If it is not a BSD variant, how should it be dealt with/named?

    [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/unworkable

    Regards,

    David


    --
    Soren Stoutner
    [email protected]
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJKVN2yNUZnlcqOI+wufLJ66wtgMFAmX2gkAACgkQwufLJ66w tgPN9g//clt8lZZZ8OCaFQbFu+FN0tK/KTTPSmsegdkcXxVd2gtnPmCdQqJkrHmw c2dcez70UcqerednSTOUB8WRD7+RA/8y9aV9anrYyN7Yqy0o14q4g0f4AR99rdFs oMjF4Xk10GmjI0ILoP1D6Y1pp5m8T2a1lXjac6O40aJR6V2QgdlJ7j+e1WWpFk7l WrWqSHio7qrGtNZtVbxNz9x8zBf1u9mdfEzAS/YXCSmFbZLDNNE4HupSilDCiD0b 3SHPcYqwkp5ibDeoXwbnAQG1NKngvMBM/nxpsI+XY9OLysV1JsiksyYzqNkLkjin 3emeVZj95uoqeKvXSZoku9mvKshMh6doAMGDteZPoKM3gAx+q6fYYaPM5iqnx9jg ruJhyFzKhmFkDZQkK3d38lzsCuMKEcRl6/fqwGCnWzKUsJuxse4F4Ph9wA+cVkrR cvweEOY8+SpEph6ySXj7b/09ePviUDDRjlLefy4OH3bHHPDAKipv3sxF8Ruo/VIm XlWPkKzuwrRrV935D6AoK/3O/jgUA2idvf1UltxknYNviI4+LMCXraal8UcWkLXw Fq2rlQMyM9qvGC4J9SbFKZziBAPdqY7CYJlkxz9AzQweSokvMClMife+38yiz3g0 +cIT2kSgz1ALed46l2ib1Nrb8K0+ybvBmW9ChIUE0TKN9KRMl1A=
    =D/Ih
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Charles Plessy@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 17 07:30:01 2024
    Le Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 10:40:16PM -0700, Soren Stoutner a �crit :

    License: BSD-custom-2-clause

    I would recommend a different abbreviation. BSD-custom-2-clause may
    give the false impression that this is a standard BSD 2-clause license
    where the copyright holders are not the regents of the university of California. BSD-custom-with-endorsement-restriction for instance will
    convey the message much more clearly and will stimulate the reader to
    pay attention to the details and consequences of this clause.

    Have a nice Sunday,

    Charles

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)