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
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?
This is correct. Those files can be used under the MIT license terms.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:55 PM Nicolas Mailhot <
> Le 2019-03-19 16:57, Clement Galland a écrit :
> > Hi,
> > I would like to use some of your files from
> > http://pagure.io/fedora-comps.git :
> > * comps.dtd
> > * comps.rng
> > * comps-cleanup.xsl
> > I would use them for an internal tool, however, because there is no
> > license files, I prefer to ask you directly if I can use them.
> I'm only the main author or the rng file, and I'm pretty sure it's a
> derived work of the rest.
> I imagine the licensing of the files is basically the same as
> but you should have it confirmed on the fedora-legal mailing list
> Nicolas Mailhot
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 3:36 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Is it necessary that an open source license must allow porting to
> > proprietary systems? I don't think so today. But based on what I
> > found out about the OpenMotif license, people actually thought that
> > back then. This surprises me. Has this changed?
I'm not sure if this was at all a concern in the past, but the license is
confusing in how it states the "open source" operating system limitation,
and it's possible to read it as prohibting, for example, running Open Motif
on a privately-modified version of Debian or Fedora.
The table entry for Lucent Public License (Plan9) lists it as
GPL2-incompatible. However, the entry for GPL3 compatibility is
undefined. The OSI lists two revisions of the LPL (1.0 and 1.02), and
it is not clear if the compatibility table refers one or both
Also, the given link is not accessible.