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

[Andrew Cagney <andrew.cagney%gmail.com@localhost>]

On 20 April 2016 at 08:49, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 08:27:41AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>>
>> Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 07:29:36AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > As I wrote on IRC, the problem here is that there is a semantic
>> > ambiguity on whether the permission grant is without fee or whether copying
>> > has to be without fee. I consider this argument very weak, especially
>> > with the sentence structure used, but there are nitpickers that believe
>> > different.
>>
>> 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?

The package is in both Debian and Fedora; presumably it is MIT-like.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT#Old_Style_.28no_advertising_without_permission.29
"documentation" vs "associated documentation".

> Correct.
>
>> One other point is to ask the authors whether they believe it is a Free
>> Software license.  From the LICENSE file at
>>   https://raw.githubusercontent.com/python-pillow/Pillow/master/LICENSE
>> I find:
>>
>> "Like PIL, Pillow is licensed under the MIT-like open source PIL Software License:"
>>
>> which to me is a clear statement that the licensors believe that the PIL
>> Software License is similar to the MIT license and meets the Open Source
>> definition.
>
> Frankly, I would just side step the issue for now and ask them to please
> choose their wording to match one of the canonical copies. I don't see a
> point in doing anything more complicated than a commented out LICENSE
> entry with a reference to this discussion.

Except, LICENCE files and text are typically immutable.  The core text
found in pil and pillow is presumably identical.