linux-kernel - Re: LICENSES: Missing ISC text & possibly a category ("Not recommended" vs. "Preferred licenses")

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 29 Apr 2018 07:31:01 +0000
From:   "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
        One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        DOCUMENTATION <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kate Stewart <kate@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
        Rob Herring <rob.herring@...aro.org>,
        Jonas Oberg <jonas@...e.org>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, mcgrof@...nel.org
Subject: Re: LICENSES: Missing ISC text & possibly a category ("Not
 recommended" vs. "Preferred licenses")

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 07:03:15AM +0000, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 07:26:17AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> ISC license is a simplified version of the BSD license due to the Berne
> convention. It was also used for wireless drivers to help the BSD community in
> particular OpenBSD who had picked that license for new contributions claimed
> simplification of the BSD-2-Clause. Because of this reason many BSD communities
> feel super comfortable with picking up kernel code in Linux under this license.
> 
> Granted, I'm on no longer a fan of promoting permissive licenses as it didn't
> buy us cross-collaboration at all. We tried.
> 
> But it would be unfair to advice against a license unless a reason is stated in
> favor of another BSD license. Why is the ISC license worse than the
> BSD-2-Clause?

Here's a good 'ol discussed reason as to why to prefer the 2-clause BSD
I suppose, and also to consider dual licensing actually:

http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120408155709.1c817f1f@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk

So essentially tested over time, runtime considerations, and whatever the FSF
decides today may change tomorrow. So best to be safe. The dual licensing
strategy also helps with "unanticipated incompatibility".

  Luis