Use "Simplified BSD License" in license selection fields

[Fumihito YOSHIDA]

https://help.launchpad.net/TermsofUse
"Translations copyright" said,
| These translations are made available to Canonical and in turn to you under the BSD license
| (revised, without advertising clause). We require this so that other projects can use these
| translations as sources for their own translations, without suffering licensing incompatibilities.

I think that the "BSD license (revised, without advertising clause)" is old diminutive,
we should not use "revised", this is not cleary. Because this "revised" license is not latest,
newer is "2-Clause".
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-announce/2008/06/20/msg000030.html

Plase append new term "3-clause BSD license".
(e.g.: "BSD license (revised, without advertising clause, the "3-clause BSD License") ")

But, this is not important(is trivial),

[Karl Fogel (kfogel)]

I suggest we allow both the 3-clause and the 2-clause BSD licenses, and that we call them by the same name: "BSD license (without advertising clause)".

That is, we do not need to distinguish between 2-clause and 3-clause, since they are functionally the same. The important thing is that neither of them contains the infamous advertising clause (which was part of the original 4-clause BSD license). So let's use the phrase "(without advertising clause)" to indicate that.

Background:

The "advertising clause" that was dropped from the original BSD license in 1999 said:

  "All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
  software must display the following acknowledgement: This product
  includes software developed by <ORGANIZATION> and its contributors."

Both the 3-clause and the 2-clause are post-1999. The difference between them is the removal of *another* clause -- the endorsement prohibition:

  "Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its
  contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
  this software without specific prior written permission.

As that clause just reiterates a prohibition already enforced by trademark law, so some licensors deem it unnecessary in the copyright license and have dropped it. For our purposes, it doesn't matter whether the endorsement clause is present or not, so we don't really care whether someone is licensing under 3-clause or 2-clause. They're both BSD-style open-source licenses, and we can use one category to hold them.

[Curtis Hovey (sinzui)]

I like your proposal Karl. I'll see if it is possible if this change is simple a matter of text (easy) or is infrastructure (meaning db and awkward).

[Barry Warsaw (barry)]

Reading the original description, I don't think the OP was talking about the project licenses. Karl and Curtis seemed to have hijacked the bug for updating the projects/+new license text, and I'm willing to go along with that!

However, changing the text to

[ ] BSD License (without advertising clause)

won't fit in the space available I suspect. The OSI calls this the "Simplified BSD License"

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

and I propose we follow suit, e.g.

[ ] Simplified BSD License

Note that I will be opening a separate bug to track linking our license texts to the OSI pages where the specific license is described.

[Karl Fogel (kfogel)]

"Simplified BSD" sounds good to me.

[Curtis Hovey (sinzui)]

Let's make this the official answer *forever*. This discussion (along with bugs) has be occuring for about 18 months. Translations had a separate discussion when they relicensed all translations. I want to mark every future bug about the BSD licenses as invalid or wont fix, no further discussion.

[Barry Warsaw (barry)]

Agreed! I've changed the title of this bug to make that obvious. Now we can point people here and be done with it.

[Fumihito YOSHIDA (hito)]

"Simplified BSD" sounds good to me too, that's nice.

[Curtis Hovey (sinzui)]

Fixed released in Launchpad 2.2.6.