[Developers] ADMB-IDE licensing

[John Sibert]

Good points.

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.

John

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 
> page.
>
> ---
>
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Arni
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> Developers at admb-project.org
> http://lists.admb-project.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
>

-- 
Visit the ADMB project http://admb-project.org/