license change (all contributors please follow up)
hp at redhat.com
Tue May 25 09:17:25 PDT 2004
On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 09:39, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> Out of curiosity (I might have missed the original thread on this) why
> is the three clause BSD license used instead of the two-clause or
> MIT/X11 license? Anyone getting the software can opt to use the LGPL
> license and use the organizations/contributors in advertising under that
> license anyhow, so I don't see the clause adding anything of value
> except a bad taste in some people's mouths who don't like that third
> clause. ;-)
Ah, I couldn't find the X one since it was listed as "MIT" - OK, so
let's use this.
Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
"Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
More information about the dbus