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

[Memnon Anon <memnon+usenet%freeshell.org@localhost>]

Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> writes:

> 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.

Ancient, FWIW:

https://mail.python.org/pipermail/image-sig/2005-January/003129.html :

>I'm still using the original Python (pre-1.6) license, which is also
>used by many other Python extensions.  in OSI terms, this is known as
>the "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer":
>
>    http://www.opensource.org/licenses/historical.php

https://opensource.org/licenses/HPND

mem