On 06/28/2018 11:57 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Thu, 2018-06-28 at 11:53 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
> Teasing this apart:
> 1, The "NTP" license is just the MIT license, which is why we do not
> have "NTP" in our Good License list.
> 2. That file (pkcs11) is not under the NTP variant of the MIT
> It could be argued that it is a variant of the NTP variant of the MIT
> license... but that road leads to madness, and since the SPDX model
> frowns upon the ideas of variants... The wording is unique enough to
> merit adding it as a new license for the list, so I have done so,
> calling it "RSA".
> So just swap "RSA" for NTP in that OpenJDK license list.
Should we now ensure that every package containing a pkcs11.h (assuming
it's derived from the RSA one, which most are) now has "RSA" in its
That would be helpful, yes.