D3 License is not mainstream

[retro]

Why not MIT license or some other license which makes it clear if d3
can be used in commercial products? Having a stock custom license
makes it difficult to incorporate in products which businesses use
because one need to go through license review. Any specific reasons
why didn't the author stick to standard license?

[Frank Guerino]

I thought I read that D3 was MIT.  What is the link to the license you're referring to?

Thanks,

Frank

[Kai Chang]

https://github.com/mbostock/d3/blob/master/LICENSE

[Mike Bostock]

The BSD license is extremely common, and you can use it for commercial
applications.

http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

The only difference with the MIT license is the "no endorsement"
clause. I suppose I could switch to the newer 2-clause license (or
MIT), but I'm not sure why anyone would want to use my name to endorse
something.

Mike

[Alexander Sorokin]

Isn't that just BSD? 

-- 

Alexander Sorokin

[retro]

Hey Mike,
If you pick any license which is mainstream, it will get
you a much wider adoption. Corporations have policies and white lists
for licenses and it's a nightmare to get any custom one evaluated,
which effectively means getting rid of the library no matter how good
it is and even if the custom license is safe to use.

Any harm in switching to Jquery like MIT license?

Thanks,

[Ian Johnson]

BSD is mainstream... and I don't think Mike's is even custom, did you click on his link?

http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

I guess it is possible to release under multiple licenses though, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to do that?

--
Ian Johnson

http://enja.org

[Mike Bostock]

BSD is mainstream.

Mike

[retro]

Sorry, can we add on the main site that this is BSD? Unless i read the
BSD-3 clause i did not even know d3 was BSD. Still MIT is the more
permissive one and used by most JS libs so any chance you can switch
to MIT or you feel BSD better covers the intent of the lib?

On Apr 30, 3:13 pm, Mike Bostock <mbost...@gmail.com> wrote:
> BSD is mainstream.
>
> Mike

[Frank Guerino]

BSD seems fine.

[retro]

Ya BSD is good. Can we mention on the site it is BSD licensed?

Thanks,

On Apr 30, 4:30 pm, Frank Guerino <fgueri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> BSD seems fine.
>

[Mike Bostock]

> Can we mention on the site it is BSD licensed?

Done.

Mike

[David Deutsch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License#Comparison_to_other_licenses

"The MIT License is similar to the 3-clause "modified" BSD license, except that the BSD license contains a notice prohibiting the use of the name of the copyright holder in promotion. This is sometimes present in versions of the MIT License, as noted above."

Get your facts straight.

-skore

[Drew Walters]

The license in github differs slightly from the BSD 3-clause. Not sure if it was intentional or oversight but the BSD 3-clause includes protection for contributors which is left out of the version I'm seeing in the d3 github. Namely the following:

BSD 3-clause:

"Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse...."

d3:

"The name Michael Bostock may not be used to endorse..."

BSD 3-clause:

"IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE..."

d3:

"IN NO EVENT SHALL MICHAEL BOSTOCK BE LIABLE..."

Considering this project is hosted on github and has accepted contributions from the community does the license need updated?