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

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Richard Fontana (richard.fontana at opensource.org):

> 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.

Thank you, sir.  I had not carefully compared the canonical licence
texts, so didn't spot that aspect.  (Time to go correct my wording on
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html yet
again.)

Personally, I've always seen very little functional difference among
2-Clause BSD (https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause), MIT
License, and ISC License.  I actually hope that Rob's licence can find
wide adoption as a smallest-possible permissive licence with well-formed 
warranty disclaimer ('well-formed' rules out Fair License), such that 
the absurd proliferation of barely distinguishable permissive licences
might trail off.

In fact, to me, OpenBSD Foundation's claim that 'ISC copyright is
functionally equivalent to a two-term BSD copyright with language
removed that is made unnecessary by the Berne convention' sounds
perfectly reasonable, FWIW.