Talk:ISC license

Where is the licence?

Does anyone have a link to a copy of this licence? Gronky 12:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

I realize this isn't a big deal, but why bother renaming this to "licence"? The vast majority of the software license pages are spelled using "license"; Google hits for "ISC license" outnumber hits for "ISC licence" by more than 10 to 1 (even including the Google hits that reference the WP article itself or the various mirrors of it). Just because the article was originally created with "licence" is no reason it can't be changed. As for policy, it does say that a certain spelling variant should be preferred if "an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect." Now that isn't quite the case here, but the ISC are an American corporation. They authored the license, so I think it only makes sense to spell it with an "s". Neilc 02:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Did someone rename it to "licence"? The article should be the same as the licence's actual name. If that's the USA spelling, fine, if it's the commonwealth spelling, fine. Can you provide a link (preferably to the licence itself) showing which name is correct? Gronky 11:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It was originally "licence"; I renamed it to "license" for the reasons discussed above, and User:Janizary renamed it back to "licence". As for an official link, there's a copy of the license in the OpenBSD CVS tree. The filename and preamble use "license", but the license text itself doesn't have the word. A cursory look at the Google results doesn't show an "official"-looking copy at the ISC itself. The license isn't included in the FSF or OSI lists of open source licenses, perhaps because it is too similar to the BSD/MIT. Neilc 16:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the licence doesn't have an official name then, so the article title is descriptive, and both spellings are permitted. In this case, the first spelling used is what should stay - because there's no acceptable grounds for changing the name, and because dialect activism/wars are not acceptable (it's in the policy somewhere). Gronky 20:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

We should stick with the article's original name, because the license itself does not have a name in the text, not unlike other simple permissive licenses. --Evice (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The ISC and OSI now have copies of the license on their sites here and here They both use the American spelling. Vincent Damewood (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes

The current footnotes (last two at least) are too personal and subjective, imo. I do not think they serve any purpose and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janechii (talk • contribs) 18:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

They serve the purpose of providing a reference for factual statements in the article referring to subjective judgments ("unnecessary", "concerns", etc.). They are not meant to be neutral information, but rather provide the specific snippets, within the original source, that validate the inclusion of those judgments in this article (i.e. indicate their origin). This way, they work as document fragment specifiers within documents that aren't structured to provide such identifiers (e.g. page numbers or section names).

Perhaps formatting them in a way that makes it more immediately clear that they are quotes would make them more palatable? --Waldir ^talk 00:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Internet Software Consortium vs Internet Systems Consortium

The licence was originally written by the Internet Software Consortium, not the Internet Systems Consortium. It is a bit deceptive to only mention Internet Systems Consortium, when this is not what ISC in the licence name stands for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torpcoms (talk • contribs) 18:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)