On 06/28/2018 11:57 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > 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? That would be helpful, yes. ~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/RYOGAOZYBLGGYRPGB6R55EEDC4UMSHKC/
