[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: LICENSES: Missing ISC text & possibly a category ("Not recommended" vs. "Preferred licenses")
On 29 April 2018 at 07:26, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 11:25:17PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> Due to some maintainers *preferring* BSD-compatible license for DTS
>> files [0], I was writing mine using ISC. I had no very special reason
>> for it: I was choosing between BSD-2-Clause, MIT and ISC. I've chosen
>> ISC as I read about its "removal of language deemed unnecessary".
>> I took a moment to look at the new SPDX thing and noticed that:
>> 1) File license-rules.rst provides "LICENSES/other/ISC" as an example
> Yeah, bad example, we should fix that text up. Care to send a patch? :)

Sure. I see that license-rules.rst also refers to LICENSES/other/ZLib
which also doesn't exist.

As "other" directory contains only GPL-1.0 and MPL-1.1 I guess one of
these should be referenced.

>> 2) License file LICENSES/other/ISC doesn't exist
>> 3) ISC is listed as an *example* under the "Not recommended licenses"
> Yes, please don't use it if at all possible.
>> First of all, as ISC is used by some files in the Linux kernel, I
>> think it's worth adding to the LICENSE/*/ISC.
> 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?

As said, I read about its "removal of language deemed unnecessary". I
assumed that the simpler license text the better.

>> Secondly, it isn't 100% clear to me if ISC is preferred or not
>> recommended. File license-rules.rst suggests the later by listing it
>> as an example for "Not recommended". It's just an example though, so
>> I'm not 100% sure without seeing it in either: "preferred" or "other"
>> directories. Also if anyone finds it "Not recommended", can we get a
>> short explanation why is it so, please?
> The license is functionally equalivant to BSD-2, so why would you want
> to add more complexity here and have two licenses that are the same be
> "recommended"?

I don't insist on it, I'm trying to figure out what's the best for the
Linux community.

On the other hand I could ask why do we want more complexity by having
MIT license. It's very similar to the BSD-2-Clause after all. AFAIK
the only minor differences are that:
1) MIT clearly allows sublicensing
2) BSD 2-Clause clearly requires distributing *binaries* with
copyrights + license text


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-29 12:16    [W:0.095 / U:1.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site