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? 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. If you'd like to object to this being in DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES, I think that's a reasonable position, and overall I lean to not including licenses (that aren't clearly includable by poliycy) if there is an objection.
Description: PGP signature