Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 29 Apr 2018 07:31:01 +0000 | From | "Luis R. Rodriguez" <> | Subject | Re: 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
|  |