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

[David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:10:48AM -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
 > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:27:41 -0400
 > Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> wrote:
 > > Yes, I can see that point.  The other side of the coin -- which I
 > > think you are agreeing with -- is that the objection is a tortuous
 > > reading and that if the license authors intended to grant permission
 > > only when no copying fee was involved, they would have said something
 > > far clearer. Is that what you mean?
 > 
 > Is it possible that the Pillow people meant to include "with" and it's
 > a simple copying error?  Maybe we should ask them.

It also (according to the OP) changed "and/or" to "and", which makes
that scenario a lot less likely.

Looking specifically at the diff makes it a lot easier to construct
the interpretation that it's meant to prohibit distribution for a fee,
I think. But I'm not sure what to make of that; IANAL.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost