Skip to content

Conversation

@italvi
Copy link

@italvi italvi commented Jan 16, 2023

BSD-3-Clause and BSD-4-Clause both had the name "BSD License", s.t. an unique mapping was not possible. The BSD-4-Clause is the "original" BSD-Clause, while BSD-3 is the "2.0". Therefore, I changed the name "BSD License" for the BSD-3-Clause to "BSD License 2.0".

BSD-3-Clause and BSD-4-Clause both had the name "BSD License", s.t. an unique mapping was not possible. The BSD-4-Clause is the "original" BSD-Clause, while BSD-3 is the "2.0". Therefore, I changed the name "BSD License" for the BSD-3-Clause to "BSD License 2.0".

Signed-off-by: italvi <[email protected]>
@sschuberth
Copy link
Contributor

I agree that "BSD License" should not be mapped to "BSD-3-Clause" as it's not clear which BSD version is meant in the former (we did remove this mapping in ORT a while a go, BTW).

However, I'm not sure whether mapping "BSD License 2.0" instead is a good idea, as it could easily be misread as "BSD License 2", which in turn could be misread as "BSD-2-Clause". I acknowledge that Wikipedia mentions "BSD License 2.0" as an alias for "BSD-3-Clause", but I'm wondering whether there's any real-life example of a software package that uses "BSD License 2.0" as part of its license metadata?

@jeremylong
Copy link
Contributor

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants