This is a good joke... If you look at the Wikipedia article on the ISC/OpenBSD license ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license#History) as well as the archived mail from Paul Vixie and Theo de Raadt, it seems quite clear that the text in the preferred OpenBSD license ( http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/share/misc/license.template) was in fact the original wording.
Of course FSF lawyers prefer something more complicated so they convinced the ISC folks to change the word "and" to "and/or." This may seem like an innocent change but the term "and/or" is actually subject to more than one interpretation in different legal systems. deraadt disagreed with this change and decided to leave the copyright notice as is. Now here is the punch line. If you look at the GNU website ( https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ISC) they actually say that OpenBSD "updated" the ISC license to remove the "ambiguous" term! WTF? And due to this manufactured controversy they of course encourage developers to choose something less open to interpretation...Maybe the real issue is that it is very hard to litigate a simple copyright statement, and very easy to litigate a complex statement that spans not only copyright, but contract law and patent law as well. Like, for example, Apache 2.0 or GPL 3. For all the legal paperwork in open source you would think there is a bigger payoff for the developers.
