[Developers] ADMB-IDE licensing
sibert at hawaii.edu
Thu May 14 13:45:30 PDT 2009
I think it is acceptable to simply refer to the license as "BSD" rather
than "New BSD" pr "BSD 2", but we need to be consistent.
I believe that we took care of the manual issues you mention in Subversion.
But need to be a bit more careful.
Arni Magnusson wrote:
> This licensing is not an enjoyable topic, but compulsory education for
> the ADMB development team, I guess. Now, regarding the licensing of
> ADMB itself, the current admb/trunk/LICENSE talks about
> general terms of the "BSD" license
> while admb/trunk/LICENSE.txt talks about
> general terms of the "New BSD" license
> and the manual talks about
> general terms of the "New Free BSD" license
> The manual also uses the spelling "licence" and "license" on the same
> According to http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php, BSD
> licenses comes in two flavors:
> 1. The BSD License. It has three clauses, although before 22 July 1999
> it had four. Synonyms include "The Modified BSD License" and "The New
> BSD License", but they are not very descriptive, since there exists
> another version that is also modified and new:
> 2. The Simplified BSD License. It has two clauses. Synonyms include
> "The FreeBSD License". The difference is that people would be allowed
> to use the names of UC, Otter Research, and the ADMB Foundation to
> promote derived products.
> Shouldn't we converge to either "The BSD License" or "The Simplified
> BSD License". The latter offers beauty with simplicity, unless the
> promotion issue is relevant. The Simplified BSD License is what
> today's main BSD system (FreeBSD) uses, so it's no minor offshoot.
> Developers mailing list
> Developers at admb-project.org
Visit the ADMB project http://admb-project.org/
More information about the Developers