On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 8:34 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 6:42 PM Luis Villa <luis(a)lu.is> 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
> 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
> 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
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.