[License-review] Please rename "Free Public License-1.0.0" to 0BSD.
Richard Fontana
richard.fontana at opensource.org
Tue Oct 16 21:23:33 UTC 2018
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 01:21:03PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> I'm now a bit confused, because Rob's copy of 'Toybox License' aka 'zero
> clause BSD' at https://landley.net/toybox/license.html states that it's
> OpenBSD's 2-clause BSD licence text with the obligation phrase 'provided
> that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all
> copies' removed.
>
> The links provided appear to bear out that claim.
Rob links to this page
http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
which refers to the ISC license and says:
The ISC copyright is *functionally equivalent* to a two-term BSD
copyright with language removed that is made unnecessary by the
Berne convention. This is the preferred license for new code
incorporated into OpenBSD. A sample license is available in the file
/usr/share/misc/license.template.
[emphasis added]
What you're calling "OpenBSD's 2-clause BSD license text" is what I
(and at least some others) call "the ISC license", what that OpenBSD
resource calls "the ISC copyright", while "2-clause BSD" is a
different license.
2-clause BSD: https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause
ISC: https://opensource.org/licenses/ISC
Zero-Clause BSD aka Free Public License 1.0.0: https://opensource.org/licenses/FPL-1.0.0
> (Pedantry note: In the English language, compound adjectives are
> traditionally hyphenated for greater clarity.[1] Give hyphens a chance,
> say I! Because a hot water bottle might or might not be safe to touch,
> whereas a hot-water bottle would. Thus: zero-clause BSD.)
I feel the name is better off with the hyphen.
Richard
More information about the License-review
mailing list