On 06/27/2018 01:09 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > Hi, > > I'm reviewing OpenJDK and licensecheck pointed me at: > > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/file/cf09f0b56efd/src/jdk.crypto.cryptoki/share/native/libj2pkcs11/pkcs11.h > > to be NTP. Is "NTP" this license? > https://opensource.org/licenses/NTP > > If that's the case, why isn't it listed in the "Good Licenses" list here? > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses > > What's the license of the above file? Teasing this apart: 1, The "NTP" license is just the MIT license, which is why we do not have "NTP" in our Good License list. 2. That file (pkcs11) is not under the NTP variant of the MIT license. It could be argued that it is a variant of the NTP variant of the MIT license... but that road leads to madness, and since the SPDX model frowns upon the ideas of variants... The wording is unique enough to merit adding it as a new license for the list, so I have done so, calling it "RSA". So just swap "RSA" for NTP in that OpenJDK license list. ~tom _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/XSDPIYGEEIVMTJCKPGAL6UCC6DKJHZGK/
