From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1524996913; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=1Ifrvd8/f3Blc1Fnq2DtF/q98jVHnmLd5WRi9SAau1Ge2lNAxCF5O2BgF8o3165fLO CsOaM65gTlIGVfCDNYnvYkXVcVqhmupEiz135eS7mhjDUqolt1Pi3o3hZvNeIaE9zxoK mik5D5k6gX2icfMtS0g638jYwgd5UvzE4fvjb2mAhHXWf7uER0iHk5/Pia69yEk99abd mEqBsKKojM+3Cqo0ONCN7279QDqaCEpuyeZYobwgZF+i0v3IZEO4kMwYk5wSdL/D6gBf hoC27V2/VqrHTJTL0uwe2FBIUrFARTS7LSE8r/QOmsFRoWhUwze3pSXB/P6mJLdcGb2H qIKw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:dkim-signature :arc-authentication-results; bh=cfKkgPUloGp48wnL74XURNTRmFy3MPDGuob53nuC0oQ=; b=RxV0x5C2hQVt3ZH8TMvhRx9dFvz9Q7hHndMQGeOjrvX0x+U5eIsTsLjN6HW0+T9AhD BTq99lrtUDZ4UwscMp+JPPJaa/vHRCNslk+c3Zuk0FXZq02TquHyhku/99fFYi2pluiM LYModNSMi7h8XHQTZaB+erKm7A3JHy0gkLPnqbdHJA1aU+FP9HKuH2jU0Ck3fxQD1n7B 1+6m2giwV+Qp7tkrmgIa5/o4XXp94+fkZRIvGjym9a4Du8hcGoM9wBJswZYUTso7JCmw DDnRfJ7j5AUU2de1ObLnr/ZlQom2vIZ/yFKtExZn2R23zYsSQTMSYslKN07uCbX06s9A GuHw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=oc7WLD32; spf=pass (google.com: domain of zajec5@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=zajec5@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=oc7WLD32; spf=pass (google.com: domain of zajec5@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=zajec5@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZoWeG/WsxIXdIQ9C/Cns1UG25rMHuFntl7ZAv0qth6rVSw28q9n/N/FOs3W3WqNqfs8aHDv6IWo9tvtUh2YHK4= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180429052617.GC24294@kroah.com> References: <20180429052617.GC24294@kroah.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:15:11 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: LICENSES: Missing ISC text & possibly a category ("Not recommended" vs. "Preferred licenses") To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Thomas Gleixner , LKML , Jonathan Corbet , DOCUMENTATION , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Philippe Ombredanne , Christoph Hellwig , Russell King , Rob Herring , Jonas Oberg , Joe Perches , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Kate Stewart , Florian Fainelli , "Luis R. Rodriguez" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-getmail-retrieved-from-mailbox: INBOX X-GMAIL-THRID: =?utf-8?q?1599026726440039181?= X-GMAIL-MSGID: =?utf-8?q?1599075163581609234?= X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 29 April 2018 at 07:26, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 11:25:17PM +0200, Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki 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 --=20 Rafa=C5=82