On Thu, 2018-06-28 at 12:01 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: > 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. Just to clarify: the odds of me personally filing those bugs before I completely forget about this conversation are extremely slim. +nmav :)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected]/message/JFFRRVVENLOFPLVTM4QYBSSQFSYD4HGC/
