On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 8:34 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 6:42 PM Luis Villa <luis@lu.is> wrote:
Hey, all-

I was looking upstream at a new-to-me license (PIL license used in Pillow). It is MIT-ish, but ... to my mind, definitely not MIT. Line them up side-by-side and you'll see reasonably large differences.  (GitHub's `licensee` reports the two licenses as a ~56% match, which is an imperfect measure but indicative)

I was considering filing it as a new-ish license at SPDX, so I checked "is this packaged in Fedora", and I see that the Fedora python-pillow spec simply labels this MIT.

So my question: what should this be labeled as in Fedora? If the answer is MIT, is there any guidance (formal or informal) on when MIT considers an MIT-ish license close enough?  

Fedora has a convention of using the "MIT" label for a variety of mostly nonstandard simple permissive licenses that seem to have an X/MIT sort of pedigree rather than a BSD/Berkeley sort of pedigree.

Today I learned! Thanks, I assumed there was some sort of convention along those lines.
The pillow license seems similar to what OSI calls the Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer (which I think Fedora does not treat as "MIT" but that may be because of consequences of the OSI classification).

Indeed, it is basically HPND. Good eye.