Violating the Open Source License Non-Proliferation Treaty

If there were such a thing, which there probably should be.

For snique, I created a new variation on the 3-clause (AKA Modified, New, Revised, et al) BSD License. It has 5 clauses and you can find an example of it here. It is intended to behave the same way as the 3-clause BSD License so far as source redistributions go, and to prevent the names of the contributors or the project being attached to any binary distribution in any way.

This is because, in certain parts of the world, getting caught using snique could get you into a lot of trouble. Insisting that binaries do not refer to snique reduces the chance that anyone using it can be shown to be using it. It also reduces the chance that the other contributors or myself will get into trouble as a result of anyone getting caught.

I also wanted anyone who wants to make a binary distribution to not have to add anything to their product or documentation because they have incorporated my software. As a commercial software maker I often choose to not use BSD Licensed code because it seems stupid to include 40 lines of legalese somewhere user-visible to meet the terms of code which contributes maybe less than 1% of the user experience: instead I will write my own replacement or forego the functionality. With this license, there is an explicit requirement that binary distributions must not refer to the project or contributors in any way, which eliminates that consideration.

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>