On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 5:53 PM, Tom Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. Thank you, Tom! Cheers, Severin > ~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/VQOV7E2Y3J7APHNYENMV6TTCT4E7PUTL/
