Someone asks if they can distribute useful program A, their superiors foolishly run the proposed BSD license by the lawyers, and the lawyers agree /but/ they want a small tweak to the wording and of course Berkeley must be replaced by Foo Corp all throughout.
So now you have the Foo Corp license, which is almost but not quite exactly the same as a BSD license, but with different branding. Only Program A is under this license, but every product which includes A has to paste in the whole verbiage written by Foo Corp's lawyers in case it matters. Already we're off to a bad start.
However sometimes the lawyers "tweak" is not so insignificant after all. If someone did a bad job of explaining what the terms are supposed to achieve we may find (as has happened with various useful BSD components) that the lawyers thought the idea was to keep the OS free but somehow make the individual program still non-free when separated. Or they thought it was supposed to be free on the Internet, but non-free when shipped on physical media. Or any number of other crazy restrictions that serve no-one but inconvenience everyone.
The FSF's "Don't change the license text" rule is a good rule. Forced to choose between "Yes" and "No" the company lawyers will often reluctantly say "Yes". If you let them choose "Change the license" that's what they will pick every time.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds