On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 8:34 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 6:42 PM Luis Villa <luis@xxxxx> wrote:Hey, all-I was looking upstream at a new-to-me license (PIL license used in Pillow). It is MIT-ish, but ... to my mind, definitely not MIT. Line them up side-by-side and you'll see reasonably large differences. (GitHub's `licensee` reports the two licenses as a ~56% match, which is an imperfect measure but indicative)I was considering filing it as a new-ish license at SPDX, so I checked "is this packaged in Fedora", and I see that the Fedora python-pillow spec simply labels this MIT.So my question: what should this be labeled as in Fedora? If the answer is MIT, is there any guidance (formal or informal) on when MIT considers an MIT-ish license close enough?Fedora has a convention of using the "MIT" label for a variety of mostly nonstandard simple permissive licenses that seem to have an X/MIT sort of pedigree rather than a BSD/Berkeley sort of pedigree.
Today I learned! Thanks, I assumed there was some sort of convention along those lines.
The pillow license seems similar to what OSI calls the Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer (which I think Fedora does not treat as "MIT" but that may be because of consequences of the OSI classification).
Indeed, it is basically HPND. Good eye.
Luis
_______________________________________________ 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
