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

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

Message-ID: <20180429052617.GC24294@kroah.com>
Date:   Sun, 29 Apr 2018 07:26:17 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
Cc:     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>
Subject: Re: LICENSES: Missing ISC text & possibly a category ("Not
 recommended" vs. "Preferred licenses")

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