On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 8:34 AM Richard Fontana <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 6:42 PM Luis Villa <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hey, all- >> >> I was looking upstream at a new-to-me license (PIL license used in Pillow >> <https://github.com/python-pillow/Pillow/blob/master/LICENSE>). 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 >> <https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pillow/blob/master/f/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 -- [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]
