[License-review] MIT-CMU license for Python Pillow

[Luis Villa]

Sort of dumb/naive question: who "owns" the trove classifiers? I hate phone calls as a solution to FOSS problems, but I suspect this is one of those things that might be better hashed out over 1-2 calls where a few of us who understand the licensing problems and those who understand the technical and social constraints of pypa toss some ideas around.

My gut is that Trove probably needs a new 'mid-tier' category (no idea what the right nomenclature is in pypa world)— License :: SPDX-registered :: (license) — that allows for accurate Trove information without requiring OSI to approve every license under the sun.
On Jul 2, 2024 at 7:54 PM -0600, Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com>, wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 1:23 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Totally unrelated but in case anyone in the OSI and/or Python
> > communities cares and is motivated/knowledgeable to try to change
> > this:
> > One of the TROVE license classifiers is:
> > "License :: OSI Approved :: GNU Free Documentation License (FDL)"
> > however, if I'm not mistaken (and I hope I'm not), no version of the
> > FDL has ever been OSI approved.
>
> I opened an issue about this here:
> https://github.com/pypa/trove-classifiers/issues/183
>
> Richard
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20240708/64db18c8/attachment.htm>