Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update license-mapping.json for BSD-3-Clause #253

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

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?

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.

2 participants