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

[Nigel T]

I don't see that this is misleading in any substantive way.  ISC is
functionally equivalent to BSD and OpenBSD is using ISC.  I don't see the
linkage with OpenBSD to be tenuous at all.  If OpenBSD submitted it as an
ISC derivative would it make it less "misleading"?

The "procedure" should be that the board votes on it.

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:23 AM Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:

> On 10/18/2018 08:23 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On 10/18/2018 01:09 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> On 10/17/2018 03:55 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> >>> It does not have a textual relationship to the BSD license (at least
> >>> beyond what I'd consider paraphrase). It's the ISC license. At some
> >>> point OpenBSD recommended use of the ISC license.
> >>
> >> So, this is 0BSD because OpenBSD likes it?  Tenuous.
> >>
> >> Here's my problem with that:
> >
> > Back in 2013 I asked the longest-serving BSD maintainer (the one who
> organized
> > the initial open source full OS releases at the Berkeley CSRG, and is
> still
> > involved with BSD today) if he was ok with the name. I wouldn't have
> kept using
> > it if he wasn't.
>
> That's fine, but he's still just one person, and we haven't yet
> established what the procedure is for working out a possible name conflict.
>
> We need to address some questions here first.
>
> 1) Does OSI have a concern in not approving license *names* that are
> derivative in a potentially misleading way?
>
> 2) If so, what should be our procedure for deciding if such a derivative
> name is acceptable?
>
> I've argued that the answer to (1) is "yes".  I'm not sure what the
> answer to (2) is.
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20181019/92c2e77b/attachment-0001.html>