Re: Request for a license change

From: SM <sm_at_resistor.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:04:53 -0700

Hi Murray,
At 10:45 17-03-10, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>I've received a request from someone working on Fedora. They want
>to create what I guess would be a Fedora-supported RPM of
>OpenDKIM. This would obviously improve our exposure and is good news.
>
>They're saying though the four-clause BSD license we're using for
>our code conflicts with the GPL, which they use, because the GPL
>disallows distribution of code that imposes more licenses than the
>GPL does. I'm a little confused by this since their own license
>matrix says four-clause BSD is allowable, but they're pushing the
>issue. They're asking if we'd consider changing our license terms
>to the three-clause BSD license.

It may be incompatible to reuse the OpenDKIM code in a GPL
application and release the entire code under a GPL license. There
is Debian package for OpenDKIM. BTW, the license for that package is
incorrect.

I would like to hear other views before taking a stance on the
license change. I am aware that the four-clause BSD license is
considered as obnoxious. if I am not mistaken, Fedora permits a
package which has a 4-clause BSD license.

>(Four-clause BSD contains a term that says if you use our code in
>your project or product, you have to give us credit for it. The UC
>Regents dropped this clause some time ago, yielding the three-clause
>BSD license which is apparently directly compatible with the GPL.)

It actually says that if you mention features or use of this software
in your advertisements, you need to display an acknowledgement.

>Since we've been in operation less than a year and dkim-milter still
>gets the majority of the download traffic, I think it would be
>unfortunate to give up that license term unless there was some
>larger benefit to the project by getting into the Fedora RPM base.

An acknowledgement attributes the effort to the people who did the
work. It can also be a way for the project to be more visible.

>Is there any harm to removing that clause from our license? Or is
>the benefit of being included in Fedora worth all that?

I don't think that the question that the code will not be included
without a change arises.

Is there a reason for removing that clause apart from the example of
75 attributions in some code?

Regards,
-sm
Received on Wed Mar 17 2010 - 19:06:29 PST