Pine's license said "and," and so did the ISC license. FSF pointed that out and ISC changed the license. Now it says "and/or." Both OSI and FSF have approved the license. And then they added (updated?) the text you quoted, complaining about the use of "and/or" ?!
The problem with Pine seems to have been that it is/was a registered trademark (compare node.js/io.js). Also note the "Richard Stallman claims [...]" part of the Wikipedia article.
Also note that nobody actually sued anyone. And even if they would have, who says they would have won? (Never mind the fact that legal precedents don't really matter outside of the US.)
All things considered. I think we're good.
---
Nothing wrong with choosing the MIT license though. Or the FreeBSD license. Or zlib, if you don't care about attribution.
Pine's license said "and," and so did the ISC license. FSF pointed that out and ISC changed the license. Now it says "and/or." Both OSI and FSF have approved the license. And then they added (updated?) the text you quoted, complaining about the use of "and/or" ?!
The problem with Pine seems to have been that it is/was a registered trademark (compare node.js/io.js). Also note the "Richard Stallman claims [...]" part of the Wikipedia article.
Also note that nobody actually sued anyone. And even if they would have, who says they would have won? (Never mind the fact that legal precedents don't really matter outside of the US.)
All things considered. I think we're good.
---
Nothing wrong with choosing the MIT license though. Or the FreeBSD license. Or zlib, if you don't care about attribution.