4 ms·
Also worth noting that the page says: > The above observations regarding moral rights imply that putting code under an ISC or two-clause BSD license essentiall
by nishs 4y ago
Also worth noting that the page says:
> The above observations regarding moral rights imply that putting code under an ISC or two-clause BSD license essentially makes the code as free as it can possibly get.
Emphasis on: or two-clause BSD license.
That said, the ultimate recommendation on the page is ISC, but only because:
> The ISC copyright is functionally equivalent to a two-term BSD copyright with language removed that is made unnecessary by the Berne convention.
- nishs 4y agoDoes anyone know which parts in the 2-clause BSD license were made unnecessary by the Berne convention?
- torstenvl 4y agoThere's some discussion here: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=120618313520730&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=120618313520730&w=2
- nishs 4y agoA negative for the ISC license: there has been controversy about "and/or" vs. "and" wording in the ISC license text. [1] The OpenBSD project uses the "and" wording, whereas the license text on the OSI website uses the "and/or" wording. Given all this, it seems to me that recommending the 2-clause BSD is the most straightforward option, because its only (and innocuous) issue is that it contains some no-longer-necessary language after the Berne convention agreements. [1] From Wikipedia: When initially released, the license did not include the term "and/or", which was changed from "and" by ISC in 2007. Paul Vixie stated on the BIND mailing list that the ISC license started using the term "and/or" to avoid controversy similar to the events surrounding the University of Washington's refusal to allow distribution of the Pine email software.
- torstenvl 4y agoThe and vs. and/or controversy is essentially made up and it's just OpenBSD trolling the University of Washington. ISC isn't perfect but it's a far better license than BSD.