On Thu, 2018-06-28 at 11:53 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: > > 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. Should we now ensure that every package containing a pkcs11.h (assuming it's derived from the RSA one, which most are) now has "RSA" in its licence list?
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ 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/ZXPO6TFOKMFICCWKSAPEBEL6BRJJDFFK/
