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