LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <email@example.com>
To: "Rafał Miłecki" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <email@example.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Linus Torvalds <email@example.com>,
Andrew Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Kate Stewart <email@example.com>,
Philippe Ombredanne <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <email@example.com>,
Russell King <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Rob Herring <email@example.com>,
Jonas Oberg <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Joe Perches <email@example.com>,
Kate Stewart <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Florian Fainelli <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: LICENSES: Missing ISC text & possibly a category ("Not recommended" vs. "Preferred licenses")
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2018 07:26:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180429052617.GC24294@kroah.com> (raw)
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 11:25:17PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> Due to some maintainers *preferring* BSD-compatible license for DTS
> files , 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-29 5:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-28 21:25 Rafał Miłecki
2018-04-29 5:26 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman [this message]
2018-04-29 7:03 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-04-29 7:31 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-04-29 10:15 ` Rafał Miłecki
2018-04-30 0:09 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--subject='Re: LICENSES: Missing ISC text & possibly a category ("Not recommended" vs. "Preferred licenses")' \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).