80

According to this question and it's replies

What is the purpose of the "non-endorsement clause" in the New BSD license?

it seems smarter to pick the BSD license over the MIT, to prevent people using your name in an unwanted way.

If that is the case, why do people still pick the MIT license over BSD license?

Community
  • 1
corgrath
  • 1,327
  • 2
  • 10
  • 11
  • 11
    The MIT license is widely understood to mean "you can do whatever you wish with this code." I hadn't heard of the BSD "non-endorsement" clause until you mentioned it, and for an individual developer I'm not sure that clause adds any value. All other things being equal, simpler is better. – Robert Harvey Jun 07 '11 at 22:41

3 Answers3

113

A friend of mine once pointed out that licenses tell you what the license authors were scared of.

If you're scared of having your name dragged through the mud, then the BSD license will seem better. If you're scared of having your software put into a proprietary piece of software, then the GPL will seem better. Whatever the license, the author chooses it because it protects them against what they are afraid of.

Different people have different concerns and so use different licenses.

btilly
  • 18,250
  • 1
  • 49
  • 75
  • 61
    This is a good answer, but it doesn't answer the question. – Michael Jul 11 '13 at 09:23
  • 47
    so the MIT is for the brave and fearless? – Jonathan DS Aug 04 '13 at 23:55
  • 11
    @Michael: It *does* answer the question. Perfectly. You want a better answer than this, hire a lawyer who specializes in licensing law. – Robert Harvey Oct 02 '13 at 03:58
  • 13
    @jonathan - No, it is for people who fear not being useful to the community. – mouviciel Oct 02 '13 at 07:23
  • 29
    @jonathan, the truly brave and fearless would reverse the liability clause and claim full responsibility for any damage caused by the software. – Erik B Nov 14 '13 at 13:30
  • 9
    Perfect answer. Never thought about it this way. I should create a Website with a small survey about your fears as the creator and distributor of your software and in the end it tells you the licence which fits best. – flu Sep 30 '14 at 08:47
  • 3
    @RobertHarvey Perhaps the question or the answer was changed since your comment, but, no. It really doesn't answer the question. The question deals with BSD and MIT licenses with no mention whatsoever of the GPL license; this answer deals with BSD and GPL licenses with no mention whatsoever of the MIT license. – Kevin Sep 12 '16 at 14:41
  • 3
    @KevinMills The principle illustrated is the same. If you fear providing people a reason not to adopt your software, the MIT license is better. If you fear your name being misused, the BSD one is better. I happened to use BSD and GPL as the illustrative example because that is the most widely argued license debate in the open source world. – btilly Sep 13 '16 at 23:49
  • 1
    @ErikB there is a difference between fearless and foolhardy. – jeffmcneill May 04 '17 at 02:14
68

Short answer is the MIT is a simpler license.

Yes in many ways I like the clause about people not being able to use your name in an unwanted way, but the reality is most people are not too concerned about that. If you are concerned about that then you are probably using the BSD license already.

Additionally the MIT License can just be copied and pasted as is while the BSD license requires editing it from project to project. Personally I like both, and feel they are similar enough that I am not losing much picking the MIT license for my project, but that is just my personal opinion.

Colin Wheeler
  • 819
  • 5
  • 4
  • 11
    It's only the 3-clause BSD license that you would possibly need to edit, the 2-clause one is basically just the same as the MIT license but with (IMO) one advantage, it's easier to quickly see the terms of the license since they're in a bullet list. – remmy Sep 29 '13 at 20:58
  • 10
    @Demizey "Advantage: Easier to see terms". ;D –  Oct 15 '13 at 16:51
1

As you may know, the original BSD license had 4 clauses, one of them being an "advertisement clause". The non-endorsement clause was likely present to accompany the advertising clause and not allow the name of the project be dragged through the mud while being advertised.

Cameron
  • 29
  • 1