BSD 3 Clause?

[Ingo Klöcker]

On Mittwoch, 21. Dezember 2022 07:33:18 CET Lukas Sommer wrote:
> I have a question about BSD-3-Clause.
> 
> https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy says:
> > 13. CMake code must be licenced under the BSD licence listed below
> 
> And:
> > BSD-2-Clause
> > 
> > SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause
> > SPDX-FileCopyrightText: <year> <name of author> <e-mail>
> > 
> > A third requirement is sometimes included: BSD-3-Clause
> > 
> > The advertising clause requiring mention in adverts must never be
> > included. The Facebook patent grant must never be included.
> 
> Now does this mean that BSD-3-Clause may be used instead of BSD-2-Clause
> for CMake code or that it must not be used? Can we clarify the wiki page?

I wondered about the same when checking how to license Python code. In the end 
I decided to use BSD-2-Clause because it didn't see a reason to use BSD-3-
Clause. Things might be different if you want to include existing code that is 
BSD-3-Clause licensed.

Re-reading the above I understand that BSD-3-Clause can be used instead of 
BSD-2-Clause. But I also read this as "Use BSD-2-Clause unless you have very 
good reasons to use BSD-3-Clause." because using BSD-3-Clause will make 
sharing code within KDE more complicated since one has to take care to keep 
BSD-3-Clause if the source of the copied code was BSD-3-Clause licensed.

So, unless you must use BSD-3-Clause, please stick to BSD-2-Clause.

Regards,
Ingo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/attachments/20221221/de64801b/attachment.sig>