steve -- thank you for the links. the book chapter on how to choose an open source software license was helpful, and the opensource.org site was informative as well.

the braincolor google group is presently having a discussion on this topic, which we thought might best be continued here, so i will copy an excerpt of the exchange:

-----

arno klein:

the term "BSD license" is a bit confusing! it could mean quite a few things according to the gnu site (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list...). from what i've read, communicating that software has an X11 license is less confusing than a BSD license (see below).

Original BSD license

This license is also sometimes called the “4-clause BSD license”.

This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the “obnoxious BSD advertising clause”. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free. But it does cause practical problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.

We urge you not to use the original BSD license for software you write. If you want to use a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, it is much better to use the modified BSD license or the X11 license. However, there is no reason not to use programs that have been released under the original BSD license.

Modified BSD license

This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD license.

This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.

If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the modified BSD license is a reasonable choice. However, it is risky to recommend use of “the BSD license”, because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the revised BSD license are more or less equivalent.

FreeBSD license

This is the original BSD license with the advertising clause and another clause removed. (It is also sometimes called the “2-clause BSD license”.) It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.

If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the FreeBSD license is a reasonable choice. However, please don't call it a “BSD” or “BSD-style” license, because that is likely to cause confusion which could lead to use of the flawed original BSD license.

-----

satrajit ghosh:

the current most used form of BSD is the two-clause license, which is very similar to the MIT license.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-l...
to me it doesn't matter if it is a website or an application. the boundary is a lot fuzzier these days. if you really want it to be free, then people should be free to do whatever with it except blame you for problems. and in my opinion the 2-clause BSD or the MIT license provides that. if on the other hand you don't want somebody to run-off with your hard work then put a restrictive license... for me personally, i don't have any attachment to any software i write. i just want it to improve and be used.

-----

arno:

i think the point of contention that has relevance to my choice of a license from here on out is in #1 and #9 of the 10 criteria constituting the "open source definition" (http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd):

1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

the LPGL and "MIT license" both satisfy these two criteria, but does GPL?

Note: on wikipedia's "MIT license" page:
According to the Free Software Foundation, the MIT License is more accurately called the X11 license, since MIT has used many licenses for software[1] and the license was first drafted for the X Window System. Some software packages dual license their products under the MIT License, such as the JavaScript library jQuery, which is licensed under both the MIT License and the GNU General Public License.[2]

-----

satrajit:

i think LGPL and MIT do, but GPL doesn't. it restricts any derived work to be GPL. GPL is the utopian license. in the ideal world everything would be GPL, but in our non-ideal circumstances i prefer BSD/MIT/LGPL. i don't completely understand the legal differences between LGPL and BSD/MIT. i like MIT and mod-BSD because they are short. not much legal mumbo-jumbo

-----

bennett landman:

Gpl is much more restrictive than lgpl... For anyone doing something a bit private or corperate, gpl code be exclusive. I use lgpl 2.1 for everything because it makes me totally open and allows others to opt-in when they use my stuff.

I use lgpl because I find that it is nearly as clean as MIT/x11/bsd, but allows me to use a broader array of 3rd party java libraries.

In an ideal world, I'd only use x11/bsd/etc. To avoid confusion, I just release everything as lgpl. There is a (small) opportunity to relicense these tools under a tech transfer agreement to relax the lgpl use restrictions.

Btw, I think the practical difference between lgpl and bsd/MIT is that with lgpl the code user has to share your code (original form) and not disallow an end user of a product from altering your library code.

-----