lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: LICENSES: Missing ISC text & possibly a category ("Not recommended" vs. "Preferred licenses")
On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 07:03:15AM +0000, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 07:26:17AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > I see it is only used in a very small number of dts files. Why not just
> > use BSD-2-Clause instead? What do you find in ISC that is not available
> > to you with just BSD?
>
> ISC license is a simplified version of the BSD license due to the Berne
> convention. It was also used for wireless drivers to help the BSD community in
> particular OpenBSD who had picked that license for new contributions claimed
> simplification of the BSD-2-Clause. Because of this reason many BSD communities
> feel super comfortable with picking up kernel code in Linux under this license.
>
> Granted, I'm on no longer a fan of promoting permissive licenses as it didn't
> buy us cross-collaboration at all. We tried.
>
> But it would be unfair to advice against a license unless a reason is stated in
> favor of another BSD license. Why is the ISC license worse than the
> BSD-2-Clause?

Here's a good 'ol discussed reason as to why to prefer the 2-clause BSD
I suppose, and also to consider dual licensing actually:

http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120408155709.1c817f1f@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk

So essentially tested over time, runtime considerations, and whatever the FSF
decides today may change tomorrow. So best to be safe. The dual licensing
strategy also helps with "unanticipated incompatibility".

Luis

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-29 09:32    [W:0.294 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site