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