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 :)