tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

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



Leonardo Taccari <leot%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:

> 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?

I would prefer calling it "pil", because the text is different.

Unfortunately it seems that OSI/FSF are not actually approving these
variant licenses as Open/Free.

I wonder if you have checked if this license is within Debian main.
There is, while not documented for pkgsrc, a third body that in effect
approves licenses, in this case Debian which evaluates if they meet the
Debian Free Software Guidelines.  I would be fine with adding "approved
by Debian as meeting DFSG" as third way to allow licenses in
DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES.

While I really don't like pkgsrc being in the business of approving
licenses, I won't object if you put this in as pil and add it to
DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES, because I can't make an argument that this
license is not Open Source or not Free.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature



Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index