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

[Richard Fontana]

I would support adding it as an approved license, defined the way SPDX
defines it. I don't think it is really an "MIT variant" , despite the
fact that it was characterized as such under the Callaway system; it's
more that it and the MIT license proper are both members of a large
family of related, mostly very old FOSS licenses.

Richard


On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 7:50 PM Pamela Chestek
<pamela.chestek at opensource.org> wrote:
>
> By "committee," I assume you mean the participants on the list. There is
> a 60 day period for review, so we're about halfway through. I would take
> a lack of other comments to be agreement with your opinion.
>
> Pam
>
> On 6/26/2024 4:03 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Hey, committee:
> >
> > Can we have some feedback on this?  Let's not run out the clock.
> >
> > On 6/17/24 09:34, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >>
> >>> Would it be possible to add the legacy "MIT-CMU" license to the OSI
> >>> approved licenses list so Python Pillow (Python Imaging Library
> >>> fork) project can update its license to MIT-CMU, which we now
> >>> consider "more correct" than HPND, details here:
> >>
> >> My vote: this license is clearly open source, and it would make sense
> >> to have it listed with the note that it is an MIT variant.
> >>
> >> At some stage, it might be good to go through the rest of the list of
> >> "MIT variants"; nice of Fedora to have collected them for us
> >> (although I don't agree that all of these are MIT variants, but some
> >> of them obviously are).  We might want to discuss how to represent
> >> these on the website.