> On Dec 4, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Lawrence Velázquez <lar...@macports.org> wrote: > >> On Dec 4, 2016, at 12:11 PM, Ryan Schmidt <ryandes...@macports.org> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 4, 2016, at 10:49, Lawrence Velázquez <lar...@macports.org> wrote: >>> >>> The checking script only mentions BSD (3-clause) and BSD-old >>> (4-clause). >> >> As far as I was aware, we were referring to all three versions of the >> BSD licensee as "BSD". Is there a reason to do otherwise? > > At a minimum, the 4-clause license must be distinguished as "BSD-old" > because it is not compatible with the GPL.
Oh right. That's what we do. I remember now. > If we've already been referring to the 2-clause license as "BSD", it's > probably fine (from a practical standpoint) to continue doing so, > although the ambiguity doesn't sit well with me. IMHO it's dumb that they don't assign version numbers to their license versions.
