[License-review] Please rename "Free Public License-1.0.0" to 0BSD.

[Rob Landley]

On 10/15/2018 10:26 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> This is putting the cart before the horse but it occurred to me that
> there are about ten different viable ways of spelling out the
> hypothetical future OSI-recognized official license name Zero Clause
> BSD License (to give the way the name is presented on the OSI website
> right now), not counting the SPDX full name "BSD Zero Clause License"

When you were trying to convince SPDX to change its mind in 2015 (because you
couldn't change yours), you said your official policy was to be compatible with
SPDX. That implies you'd use what SPDX already says. I'm happy with that.

I just want the first hit for 0BSD to stop being a page saying it isn't. (Let
alone implying it has something to do with the Free Software Foundation, Free
Software, and Copyleft.)

If you stopped mentioning it at _all_ and just let SPDX be unopposed, this would
be a successful outcome to me. Your belated participation has caused nothing but
confusion, which is sad.

> (which I'd recommend against, unless you envision a future in which
> that's really what people call the license). There should be one
> canonical form of the license name.

Toybox has called it Zero Clause BSD for 4 years now. Toybox will continue to
call it Zero Clause BSD. SPDX put those words in a different order because of
historical precedent with 4 clause BSD, 3 clause BSD, and 2 clause BSD, and I
was fine with that as a condition of getting SPDX to approve it.

I never asked OSI. I didn't realize this left a vacuum for someone _else_ to ask
OSI to do something crazy, that they wouldn't do any homework if they did, and
would then spend years clinging to an obvious mistake.

> Richard

Rob