[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectLICENSES: Missing ISC text & possibly a category ("Not recommended" vs. "Preferred licenses")

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
2) License file LICENSES/other/ISC doesn't exist
3) ISC is listed as an *example* under the "Not recommended licenses"

First of all, as ISC is used by some files in the Linux kernel, I
think it's worth adding to the LICENSE/*/ISC.

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?



 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-28 23:26    [W:0.060 / U:0.276 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site