tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

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

"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <> writes:

> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:27:41 -0400
> Greg Troxel <> 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.

I think you and Joerg are both suggesting that we ask Pillow to change
their license text to be a normal license.   It's fair to ask, but the
history of pkgsrc engaging with upstreams to resolve things like this
has been dismal.  I almost suggested that originally, but refrained as
it seems to be tilting at windmills.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index