Adding MIT License to Common Licenses

[Scott Kitterman]

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 00:47:34 +0900 "Emmet Hikory" <persia at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> The current [1]'permissive' license in common-licenses is BSD.  It has 
some
>> issues and while quite common, is not, I think an ideal permissive 
license to
>> use when one is looking for a license in that category.  The [2] MIT 
license
>> is reasonably common and, IMO, a better choice for new projects.
>
>    I usually recommend the ISC license (1,2) over either the MIT or
>BSD license when asked for a permissive license for new code.  It
>avoids the "Regents of the University of California" problem with the
>BSD licence, and requires fewer bytes than the MIT license.
>
>1: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/isc-license.txt
>2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license
>
Yes, it equally solves that problem.  I like that MIT is explicit about 
some of the rights it grants and would prefer it.  

if there's consensus around ISC, that'd be fine too.  Of course since it's 
shorter it's less important to get it in common-licenses. :-).

I'm curious which is more common in the archive?

Scott K