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

[Rob Landley]

On 10/16/2018 04:23 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> 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

Earlier you wanted to go with which name was more widely used, now you're
objecting to the provenance of the name. Your conclusions remain unchanged, but
the reasons you give for those conclusions seem to be shifting.

> 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]

Or the emphasis could go around "This is the preferred license for new code
incorporated into OpenBSD", which makes it "A BSD License".

I've been publicly using this license for 5 years (which would let me name a
dinosaur or atom). You yourself pointed out I was using the name "zero clause
BSD" a year before submitting it to SPDX:

https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/spdx-legal/2015-November/001567.html

OSI's mistake _is_ demonstrably harming the adoption of the license:

https://github.com/david-a-wheeler/spdx-tutorial/issues/1

When we spoke at linuxconf.au, you're the one who suggested I raise the issue
with OSI's board on the mailing list. It took me a while to get around to it,
but I did. You didn't say that that _you_ would be the primary source of
objections. (Why didn't you raise any them in person when we spoke? Why send me
to the list when you're the first person to speak against it on the list, only
after the issue's been up a week and it only received support and then I ask
where we go from there and _then_ you object?)

Rob