linux-kernel - 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <CACna6rz_Ms2Uv1P6E0gCGNsRwK4nm=PMAOaJ5Uk9aJxs2VSamQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 28 Apr 2018 23:25:17 +0200
From:   Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        DOCUMENTATION <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kate Stewart <kate@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        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>
Subject: LICENSES: Missing ISC text & possibly a category ("Not recommended"
 vs. "Preferred licenses")

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
2) License file LICENSES/other/ISC doesn't exist
3) ISC is listed as an *example* under the "Not recommended licenses"

First of all, as ISC is used by some files in the Linux kernel, I
think it's worth adding to the LICENSE/*/ISC.

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?

[0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/4/707

-- 
Rafał