Re: LICENSES: Missing ISC text & possibly a category ("Not recommended" vs. "Preferred licenses")

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 11:25:17PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 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? :)

> 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?

> 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"?

thanks,

greg k-h