Issue #1 resolved

The modified license is incompatible with everything

Anonymous created an issue

Your modified BSD style license prevents linking this library with almost any other project, because of sections 3 and 4.

Section 3 says the software can't be distributed by web sites that serve advertisements. If bitbucket started serving ads, you'd violate your own license. Additionally, most companies that offer downloads of their software promote themselves on their web site.

Section 4 is useless. If sections 1 - 3 did not apply, the person considering use of the software has nothing to worry about when using the library as they see fit.

Please, consider using a standard 3 clause BSD license for this project, else it is not likely to be included, especially by projects that also link against GPL/LGPL libraries (the modified section 3 conflicts with both versions of the GPL, LGPL and AGPL.)

Basically, I can't link against glibc and this library and distribute the final product legally.

Comments (1)

  1. trijezdci repo owner

    You are mistaken. The license has been reviewed by a law firm. It is compatible with all the licenses you mention.

    Clauses 3 and 4 are identical to other BSD licenses.

    You seem to be concerned about clause #1, not 3 or 4. Clause #1 does nothing to forbid linking. You can publish your own software any place you like even if it links to my code, including traffic squatters and pretender sites. You just can't display the sources of my library on such a site. You can put it on any ftp mirror though.

    Web traffic squatters and pretenders misrepresent the authors of software they list and violate every BSD license already due to misrepresenting the authors and rights holders. However, they are all too often run by folks whose native language isn't English and they only recognise strong language. For that reason #1 has been added. It does not actually change anything because the BSD license already forbids misrepresentation of an author. If you merely link to the library and have it listed on a site with advertising, that doesn't violate the license.

    You also seem to be concerned about clause #5. This is necessary because in some countries parliaments have discussed new legislations that would make any no-warranty disclaimer illegal. The problem is that once you have released software under a license such as the BSD or GPL license, that says no-warranty you can't take the license back and say "from now on, this license is no longer valid". Once released the software is licensed under that license forever. If some country introduces a law that makes you liable for any software you released even if it has a no-warranty clause because the law voids such no-warranty clauses, then that applies to software you released even before the law came into effect.

    Then all somebody has to do to do you harm is file a law suit against you in a country where such a law comes into force. The cost of defending yourself and all the hassle associated with it is something you will for sure want to do without. Clause #5 protects an author from such legislation. If some parliament somewhere decides tomorrow that no-warranty disclaimers in software licenses are void in their country even if the software was provided free of charge, then this license will automatically cease to be valid in that country. As a result, the author cannot be sued by anyone from there since no license exists. I don't really care if people in such places would use my code anyway, but I do care if they were to get a legal right to sue me. If they can sue me, I won't grant them any license, very simple.

    And yes, you can link against glibc and this library and distribute your code legally. What you can't do is misrepresent me or sue me or give any of your users the right to misrepresent me or sue me.

  2. Log in to comment