ACCEPTABLEness of Standard PIL License (graphics/py-Pillow)

[Leonardo Taccari <leot%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

Hello tech-pkg@,
during the update of graphics/py-Pillow to 3.2.0 (needed by new
www/mitmproxy) I have noticed that it does not define any LICENSE.
Looking a bit further to it it seems very similar to the ISC license
except for one part.

ISC states:

 `[...] and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without
 fee is hereby granted [...]'

...while the PIL Software License[0] states (please note the absence of
`with'!):

 `[...] and distribute this software and its associated documentation
 for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted [...]'

I have tried to dig regarding that in the licenses approved by Open
Source Initiative and Free Software Foundation without finding any
mention to the PIL Software License (at the same time the `w3c' license
contain a similar statement and is considered a free software license by
FSF and also approved by OSI).

I would like to hear suggestion regarding how to proceed. Should I just
mark it as an "isc" in the package Makefile or is it better to add a
e.g. "pil" license. In that case, should we mark it as a
DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES?

The same also applies to graphics/py-imaging (although it uses a
different license).


Thank you for the attention!
Ciao,
L.

[0]: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/python-pillow/Pillow/master/LICENSE