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

[Josh Berkus]

On 10/16/2018 10:36 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 10/16/2018 12:37 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 10/16/2018 05:26 AM, 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"
>>> (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.
>>
>> I'm still not keen on calling anything "BSD" that has no historical
>> relationship to Berkeley, but apparently I'm alone in that opinion.
> 
> This was covered in the original SPDX approval thread before anything was ever
> submitted to OSI:
> 
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2015-June/001456.html
> 
>> It was a 2 clause OpenBSD license linked as "License Template" from the
>> top of http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html with half a sentence removed
>> (ala https://github.com/landley/toybox/commit/ee86b1d8e25c).
> 
> Here is where I got the license text from, off of OpenBSD's website:
> 
> https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/src/share/misc/license.template?rev=HEAD

Ah, OK. I was going off Richard's statement that it was derived from ISC
and had no textual relationship to the BSD license.  If it has a textual
relationship, then I withdraw my objection.


Josh Berkus