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

[Brendan Hickey]

I agree with Nigel. There are differences in the drafting, sure, but as a
non-lawyer the relevant ISC and BSD language look pretty darn similar.
Conceivably someone could offer up a 0BSD license derived from the 2-BSD
text. I hope that it would then be rejected as redundant with the FPL.

While it would be preferable, as a matter of consistency to use the
language from BSD, the bell has rung.

Brendan

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 18:11 Nigel T <nigel.2048 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a5bfa973/attachment.html>