Hacker News Reader

Comment by papsosouid | Hacker News Reader

Because the second clause is the problem, not the third. The third clause in 3 clause BSD is:

>Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

View on HN

Remove the offending clause and have a two clause BSD license with clauses 1 and 3.

It's a license not an array, you can cut from the middle.

The problem is that "2-clause BSD" is already a generally accepted term for referring to the BSD license with clause 3 removed. Such a license is effectively equivalent to the MIT and ISC licenses, though.

You have a "2 clause BSD" licence. What you call the resultant license is irrelevant. What matters is the text of the license. Heck, you could call it a "modified 3-clause BSD license, please see LICENSE" if that's what you want.

> You have a "2 clause BSD" licence.

Come on, is saving face that important to you? "2-clause BSD" already has a well-accepted meaning. You might as well have said that GPL refers to "Gary's Perfect License"; After all, it's a GPL.

I only commented because of the attitude that removing the second clause from the 3-clause BSD license was not an option because we already have a 2-clause BSD license.

Fair enough. This thread started with "Why not 2-clause BSD", and I understood your comment as defending the use of "2-clause BSD" in a non-standard way.

But nobody suggested it wasn't an option. That is the point.

Two clause BSD is the name of a license. A different license would not be two clause BSD, even if it has two clauses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com