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

[Richard Fontana]

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