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

[McCoy Smith]

i did a comparision of MIT and this MIT-CMU license. See attached. There 
are some superficial similarities between the two but they are pretty 
minimal. MIT-CMU also has the clause 3 of BSD 3 which MIT doesn't.

Make of that what you will.

having said that, seems approvable as a legacy and based on it being a 
sort of hybrid of MIT & BSD-3 with some substantial, and likely 
non-substantive, rewriting.


On 6/26/2024 4:59 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MIT-CMU compare MIT.odt
Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text
Size: 43193 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20240627/9e6787c3/attachment-0001.odt>