proposal for ISC license

[polettix]

Hi, this is a proposal for the ISC license (see https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=66180)

Cheers,

Flavio.

[polettix]

Hi, a new message just to "bump" this proposal and close the related RT bug report.

Cheers,

Flavio.

[polettix]

Hi, I see that I'm co-maintainer of Software::License but I wouldn't add anything without at least your acknowledgement. Do you think this proposal is sound?

[polettix]

Is this repository still active? This pull request is more than 5 months old...

[rjbs]

Sorry that this got ignored. As you've probably noticed by now, I'm working through stuff. I will give this request more of a look in a little bit.

[rjbs]

I vote :+1:

[karenetheridge]

I vote yes -- more licence documents are fine if they have any chance of being useful.

[Leont]

I vote yes on the idea, but the implementation is wrong. In particular the section

Copyright (c) 2004-2011 by Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. ("ISC")
Copyright (c) 1995-2003 by Internet Software Consortium 

Should be something like

Copyright (c) {{$self->year}} by {{$self->_dotless_holder}}.

[polettix]

@Leont that seems to be the copyright statement for the licence itself, and as such it is not subject to change. The two lines are due to the acronym expansion change in 2003-2004 (ISC got changed from "Internet Software Consortium" to "Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.")

[Leont]

Wikipedia and the open source initiative disagree with you.

[polettix]

Makes sense actually. The OSI text is linked by the ISC site too so, to some extent, it is "blessed" by them. Is it better to the branch this PR is based on, or to rebase first and force-push the change in my repo?

[Leont]

rebase and force-push is fine. Do note "ISC" in the main text should also be replaced with "THE AUTHOR"

[polettix]

Rebased and force-pushed.

Using public method holder instead of _dotless_holder as you suggested in the first place, because there's no dot at the end of the copyright line (as per official template) so it's up to the user to put that or not. Incidentally, I'd suggest to promote _dotless_holder to a public method, as to avoid confusion (am I really supposed to be able to use it?).

I'm not sure I'm understanding your comment about "ISC" in the main text, there is now no reference to it apart in the title (which I guess it's OK looking at the other licences).

[Leont]

Using public method holder instead of _dotless_holder as you suggested in the first place

Personally I'm fine either way, I just copied that part from another license anyway.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your comment about "ISC" in the main text, there is now no reference to it apart in the title (which I guess it's OK looking at the other licences).

It's really there:

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND ISC DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
...
IN NO EVENT SHALL ISC BE LIABLE FOR

[polettix]

This will teach me to look at the text in the repository, instead of dumbly using search in the browser inside the OSI page. The dark side of lazyness.

Considering that the search was successful (in not finding "ISC"), I opted for copy-pasting the text from the OSI website :-)

[karenetheridge]

Incidentally, I'd suggest to promote _dotless_holder to a public method, as to avoid confusion (am I really supposed to be able to use it?).

+1

[Leont]

@rjbs this looks mergeable to me

[djzort]

11 years later, 6 years since "looks mergeable to me" Can we merge this?

[Leont]

We waited so long it needs an update for spdx support, but perhaps we should fix that after merging this.

[djzort]

Lets do it!

[Leont]

It turns out this doesn't index because in the mean time such a module has arisen on CPAN. I guess I should ask for the permissions for that namespace

[djzort]

No good deed... :(