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

[Nigel T]

Rob,

My apologies, if the link is to OpenBSD then there’s a linkage to BSD even if it’s ISC and you need to squint a little.  I should have remembered toybox anyway.

If we want to completely confuse everyone we can call it oBSD...I kid...I kid.

Objection flip flopped because I made a mistake and didn’t check the background story as I should have.  0BSD is more marketable but honestly if we had a series of licenses called SC0 (software commons 0), SC-BY, SC-BY-SA, etc then software licensing wouldn’t seem so scary anymore. 

And as a licensing heretic I would also want NC and ND as valid commons options.

In any case I thought folks were attempting to fix this past mistake by moving to consistently name it 0BSD before the objection to non-BSDness was raised.

Nigel

> On Oct 16, 2018, at 4:59 PM, Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:
> 
> Then _remove_ the "Free Public License" page and let SPDX stand on its own.
> 
> Your policy was to be compatible with SPDX. Your submission was recieved after
> SPDX had already concluded its approval process for this license. By its _own_
> policies, OSI made a mistake in approving a "Free Public License".
> 
> You are now raising _unrelated_ objections to avoid admitting that mistake.
> 
> Rob
> 
>> On 10/16/2018 10:47 AM, Nigel T wrote:
>> I agree... -1
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>>> On Oct 16, 2018, at 9:13 AM, Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 10/16/2018 12:45 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 06:45:03AM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2018, 06:38 Josh Berkus, <josh at berkus.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm still not keen on calling anything "BSD" that has no historical
>>>>>> relationship to Berkeley, but apparently I'm alone in that opinion.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I share this concern. BSD is not related to the license author's trademark
>>>>> as far as I am aware.
>>>> 
>>>> Back in 2015 I and one or more others pointed out that one problem
>>>> with the "Zero Clause BSD" name is that the license is not textually
>>>> based on any version of the BSD license -- rather, it is an alteration
>>>> of the ISC license. I think Rob Landley has acknowledged this but has
>>>> pointed out that use of the well-known "BSD" in the name would assist
>>>> with marketing and explaining the license.
>>> 
>>> Eh?  Then why not call it the 0GPL then?  That's an even more
>>> recognizable license name.
>>> 
>>> We should not be in the business of approving license names that deceive
>>> users.  -1 from me.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Josh Berkus
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> License-review mailing list
>>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org