From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 1 11:25:01 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC11B1DD for ; Thu, 1 Jan 2015 11:25:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bede.qeng-ho.org (bede.qeng-ho.org [217.155.128.241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 660F22E73 for ; Thu, 1 Jan 2015 11:25:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arthur.home.qeng-ho.org (arthur.home.qeng-ho.org [172.23.1.2]) by bede.home.qeng-ho.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t01B7RMf054832; Thu, 1 Jan 2015 11:07:27 GMT (envelope-from freebsd@qeng-ho.org) Message-ID: <54A52A6F.1090208@qeng-ho.org> Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 11:07:27 +0000 From: Arthur Chance User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Warner Losh Subject: Re: FreeBSD BSD License 3 -> 2 Clause History References: <54a1ec2a.853c460a.1d8a.2b34SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <57150.1419930741@critter.freebsd.dk> <3332F1C3-7B5A-4BEB-B3B0-9CA222693827@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <3332F1C3-7B5A-4BEB-B3B0-9CA222693827@bsdimp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 11:25:01 -0000 On 31/12/2014 16:22, Warner Losh wrote: > >> On Dec 30, 2014, at 8:24 PM, grarpamp wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:12 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>> I think you are reading more into that commit than it contains: >>> It merely asserted "Copyright of Compilation" over FreeBSD. >> >> Likely. My original post wasn't worded well. I was mostly interested >> in the rationale of removing the endorsement clause (from a license >> writers perspective of new work, not any particular application of same), >> which though 'simpler and more free', would seem a tricky thing to give >> up, or to model new work on after having seen 3-clause texts. > > The endorsement clause is really a legal nothing. Other, existing law requires > explicit permission to use one’s name and/or likeness in endorsement, so having > it there didn’t change anything. You are already prohibited from using the names > of people or organizations without their permission. "Existing law"? There are a couple of hundred different legal systems on the planet (there are three in the UK alone), many founded on widely divergent philosophies. In some cases it's worth spelling out your intentions in the hope they are honoured even where they have no legal standing. Assuming the laws that apply to you apply to everyone is simply not tenable in today's globalised world. -- Those who do not learn from computing history are doomed to GOTO 1