On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 11:25:17PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > Hi, > > Due to some maintainers *preferring* BSD-compatible license for DTS > files [0], I was writing mine using ISC. I had no very special reason > for it: I was choosing between BSD-2-Clause, MIT and ISC. I've chosen > ISC as I read about its "removal of language deemed unnecessary". > > I took a moment to look at the new SPDX thing and noticed that: > 1) File license-rules.rst provides "LICENSES/other/ISC" as an example Yeah, bad example, we should fix that text up. Care to send a patch? :) > 2) License file LICENSES/other/ISC doesn't exist > 3) ISC is listed as an *example* under the "Not recommended licenses" Yes, please don't use it if at all possible. > First of all, as ISC is used by some files in the Linux kernel, I > think it's worth adding to the LICENSE/*/ISC. I see it is only used in a very small number of dts files. Why not just use BSD-2-Clause instead? What do you find in ISC that is not available to you with just BSD? > Secondly, it isn't 100% clear to me if ISC is preferred or not > recommended. File license-rules.rst suggests the later by listing it > as an example for "Not recommended". It's just an example though, so > I'm not 100% sure without seeing it in either: "preferred" or "other" > directories. Also if anyone finds it "Not recommended", can we get a > short explanation why is it so, please? The license is functionally equalivant to BSD-2, so why would you want to add more complexity here and have two licenses that are the same be "recommended"? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
