www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: HSQLDB as an acceptable license?
Date Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:42:10 GMT

Right, that's why its derived from 3-clause.  However, its text is a little
different, hence why I'm asking if there's anything special to look at
specific to the HSQLDB license that may be different than BSD-3-Clause (I
know, I'm throwing people off since I just asked about BSD-4-Clause as well)


On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:42 AM Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:

> The issue with the advertising-clause in the BSD-4-Clause was the strength
> of compliance. "All advertising materials" is a very high bar. In today's
> Internet, does that include tweets about the product?
> hsql doesn't really have any advertising notions.
> For a license with some much lower bar notion of attribution in materials;
> look at our own Apache 1.1: http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-1.1 It's a
> much lower bar, so much less objectionable, but also something we dropped
> when moving to Apache 2.0.
> Hen
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:20 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
> wrote:
> The HSQLDB license is derived from BSD-3-Clause
> http://hsqldb.org/web/hsqlLicense.html
> https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause.html
> However, it's not quite the same.  It reads similar to the BSD-4-Clause,
> however the advertising notions are moved into the 2nd clause, and the
> BSD-3-Clause's 2nd clause is split into two clauses.
> John

View raw message