Thread: [Beepcore-java-users] License Question: Difference between BSD and Blocks Public License ?

[Note, I resend this message, since the first message I sent was from a
sender address different from my subscription address]

Hi,
When checking out the source for beepcore, I wondered why this introduces
yet anoter open source licence. Looking at the license at

  http://www.beepcore.org/beepcore/about_publiclicense.jsp

reveals, that it is no different to the BSD-license

  http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

(even though I didn't check every bit).

I would suggest in this case to actually drop the Blocks Public License
and use the BSD license for beepcore-java instead.

Rationale:

  - The BSD license is well known and has been verified to be an open
    source license.

  - it always causes troubles to check the licenses against each other if
    you introduce new code. For instance the Rfc822HeaderParser I've added
    (see my previous mail) originally was distributed with the w3c
    license. But I had to verify, that the Blocks Public License indeed
    is actually a BSD license before I contacted the original author to
    ask him that I might add some code to a BSD licensed project. This
    delayed my contribution; others might either not have bothered or
    would not have contributed at all.

  - As a base technology, like the (reference-) implementation of an RFC,
    a license with the low protection (like the BSD license) should be
    used, so that companies can include the package in their proprietary
    software.
    However, if this package introduces another license (even though it is
    equivalent to BSD) it is expensive to internally approve the license
    and monitor it for changes which might make companies not use the
    package. (I once worked for a company that only allowed BSD, Apache
    and LGPL libraries to link against; nothing else -- period.)

ciao,
  -hen

--
Henner Zeller
Freie Software durch B=FCcherkauf f=F6rdern | http://bookzilla.de/

Henner,

I understand your concerns, unfortunately the license choice was not mine.
The original work for this library was done at Invisible Worlds and the
management decided on the BPL. I tried to have it changed at one point but
was unsuccessful. Invisible Worlds no longer exists so I'm not sure how to
get the license changed until such time as I hold all of the copyrights in
the library.

For what it's worth, I was told that the BPL is a BSD license with the
company name changed but I'm not an expert in OS licenses so you would have
to determine if this is correct.

--Huston

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Henner Zeller" <HZ...@gm...>
To: <bee...@li...>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 4:14 PM
Subject: [Beepcore-java-users] License Question: Difference between BSD and
Blocks Public License ?



[Note, I resend this message, since the first message I sent was from a
sender address different from my subscription address]

Hi,
When checking out the source for beepcore, I wondered why this introduces
yet anoter open source licence. Looking at the license at

  http://www.beepcore.org/beepcore/about_publiclicense.jsp

reveals, that it is no different to the BSD-license

  http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

(even though I didn't check every bit).

I would suggest in this case to actually drop the Blocks Public License
and use the BSD license for beepcore-java instead.

Rationale:

  - The BSD license is well known and has been verified to be an open
    source license.

  - it always causes troubles to check the licenses against each other if
    you introduce new code. For instance the Rfc822HeaderParser I've added
    (see my previous mail) originally was distributed with the w3c
    license. But I had to verify, that the Blocks Public License indeed
    is actually a BSD license before I contacted the original author to
    ask him that I might add some code to a BSD licensed project. This
    delayed my contribution; others might either not have bothered or
    would not have contributed at all.

  - As a base technology, like the (reference-) implementation of an RFC,
    a license with the low protection (like the BSD license) should be
    used, so that companies can include the package in their proprietary
    software.
    However, if this package introduces another license (even though it is
    equivalent to BSD) it is expensive to internally approve the license
    and monitor it for changes which might make companies not use the
    package. (I once worked for a company that only allowed BSD, Apache
    and LGPL libraries to link against; nothing else -- period.)

ciao,
  -hen

--
Henner Zeller
Freie Software durch Bücherkauf fördern | http://bookzilla.de/



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive?  Does it
help you create better code?  SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU!  Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
_______________________________________________
Beepcore-java-users mailing list
Bee...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/beepcore-java-users