This sounds much more like BSD than "freedist". * Copyright (c) 1994, 1995 Benjamin Lin. * Copyright (c) 1998, Bernd Johannes Wuebben * Copyright (c) 1998, Christian Wurll * All rights reserved. * * This software is free and not encumbered by a restrictive licence such * as the GPL in the following sense: * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright * notice in the documentation and/or other materials provided with * the distribution. * * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY * EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR * PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE * FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR * CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT * OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR * BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, * WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE * OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN * IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
Altlinux [1], Suse [2] and redhat [3] use Freely Distributable. [1] http://www.sisyphus.ru/srpm/dos2unix [2] http://www.novell.com/products/linuxpackages/server10/ia64/dos2unix.html [3] http://www.cims.nyu.edu/systems/platforms/linux/software/package/dos2unix_3.1-21.2.html Also reading license... it's good summarized on freashmeat.net: Freely Distributable This software may be distributed freely, but restrictions have been placed on your right to modify it, etc. Please see the author(s) for details. And we have restriction 1. and 2. If you disagree, please, elaborate on why do you think licensing as freedist is wrong.
well, "freedist" is something nonfree. I've compared it again and it's word-identical to bsd-2-license, especially the author added another sentence: * This software is free and not encumbered by a restrictive licence such * as the GPL in the following sense: But I don't consider this part of the license, so I'd say setting the var to BSD-2 should be fine.
(In reply to comment #2) > well, "freedist" is something nonfree. Why? > I've compared it again and it's word-identical to bsd-2-license Yes. Similarities with BSD-2 license are evident. Besides this header addition: * This software is free and not encumbered by a restrictive licence such * as the GPL in the following sense: another difference is that COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS is change to AUTHOR. So currently my knowledge of laws are not enough to make decision are licenses with such difference the same licenses or not. Other distributions use freedist license too (comment #1) Well. I'll reopen and maybe somebody with better knowledge could help here...
My vote for BSD-2, too.
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > well, "freedist" is something nonfree. > > Why? freedist isn't free because it doesn't explicitly give you the rights to use the software in all circumstances (reverse engineering for example), and it isn't clear whether modified sources may be distributed. > another difference is that COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS is change to > AUTHOR. I vote for BSD-2. In any case it's more accurate than freedist, which merely contains "Freely Distributable" as it's text (see /usr/portage/licenses/freedist.)
It's BSD-2, I fixed it. The only parts that count are the actual license bullet points. The disclaimer on the end merely excludes liability from the upstreams. In this case the authors are listed at the top of the file, not as contributors but as core authors.
