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

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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