23:29 < Araq> this new style BSD license looks reasonable to me

23:29 < Araq> apotheon: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ques[. . .]

23:29 < Araq> what's wrong with the clause?

--- Day changed Tue Jan 15 2013

00:05 < apotheon> Araq: It might lead people to less publicly give you credit
for your work.

00:05 < apotheon> . . . for fear of legal threats.

00:07 < apotheon> Araq: It's also extra text, and the rule of thumb for legal
license terms is that one should always skip terms that are not specifically
something you want so you won't run afoul of any unintended legal consequences.
The more legalisms there are, the more stuff there is to get interpreted in a
court of law other than how you intended.

00:07 < apotheon> Araq: The Revised BSD License (aka New BSD License) isn't
bad, though, and is in the list of CI certified copyfree licenses.

00:08 < apotheon> Araq: Among BSD licenses, my preference is for the Simplified
BSD License (aka FreeBSD License).

00:08 < apotheon> Araq: . . . but it's kind of a matter of degrees at that
point.  Both are fairly simple, copyfree licenses.

00:09 < apotheon> Araq: Just make sure you call it by a distinctive name (i.e.
"Revised BSD License" instead of "The BSD License").

00:10 < apotheon> Araq: It's fucking annoying when people say "I'm releasing
this under the BSD License," then make other people hunt through code to see
what license they mean -- especially because some people use that to refer to
the MIT/X11 License, the ISC License, or even the fucking Apache License 2.0.

00:11 < apotheon> (Actually, I think the full name is the Fucking Apache
Insanity License, or FAIL.)