Re: odd sgi licence

[Patrick Welche <prlw1%cam.ac.uk@localhost>]

On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 06:54:47PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> Patrick Welche <prlw1%cam.ac.uk@localhost> writes:
> 
> >   https://github.com/glmark2/glmark2/blob/master/COPYING.SGI
> >
> > isn't the same as sgi-free-software-b-v2.0, yet
> >
> >   http://www.sgi.com/tech/opengl/
> >
> > suggests that sgi-free-software-b-v2.0 is the currently available licence.
> >
> > Add this other one? If so under what name? and would it be acceptable
> > by default?
> 
> We try not to judge ourselves, but that can get silly.  On quick read,
> the COPYING.SGI looks very close to original-bsd, but not in text.  (The
> US government restricted rights bit can be ignored; it's about defense
> contracting and not relevant to the rest of the world.)   So sometimes I
> run wdiff from a license to all the licenses and see which is closest,
> and if it's close enough to be the same.
> 
> That license seems obviously Free, and effectively equivalent to
> modified-bsd.   The normal question is whether it has been approved by
> FSF or OSI, to keep us out of the business of judging licenses.  I
> supppose SGI is defunct and asking them to get it approved or blessed is
> not practical though.

I looked at FSF (hence my commit to license.mk) but that exact wording
doesn't seem to appear anywhere else (and as I mention above, sgi
seems to assume b-v2.0).

Just call it modified-bsd?

Cheers,

Patrick