Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception.

Python Imaging Library License

Provide a proposed Short Identifier.

PILL

Provide a functioning url reference to the license or exception text, either
from the author or a community recognized source.

https://github.com/python-pillow/Pillow/blob/master/LICENSE

Create and attach a text file with the license or exception text from the
url provided in #3

attached

Indicate whether the license is OSI-approved (see:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical) or whether it has been
submitted for approval to the OSI and is currently under review.

Not OSI approved. Not submitted to OSI.

Provide a short explanation regarding the need for this license or exception
to be included on the SPDX License List, including identifying at least one
program that uses this license.

The Python Imaging Library and the PILLOW fork are widely used.

Hi Mark:

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 8:42 PM Mark Atwood via Lists.Spdx.Org
<atwoodm=amazon.com@...> wrote:

Provide a proposed Full Name for the license or exception.
Python Imaging Library License

It looks to me as a proper historical permission (HPND
https://spdx.org/licenses/HPND.html )
This has been detected by the ScanCode toolkit as an HPND alright and
this is within the "matching guidelines" too IMHO...
unless this additional "prefix" is considered as creating something
entirely new:
"By obtaining, using, and/or copying this software and/or its associated
documentation, you agree that you have read, understood, and will comply with
the following terms and conditions:" ...

--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne

+1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne@...
DejaCode - What's in your code?! - http://www.dejacode.com
AboutCode - Open source for open source - https://www.aboutcode.org
nexB Inc. - http://www.nexb.com

Hi Mark, Philippe,

I just had a closer look at this using Alan’s handy License Diff tool, which gave it a close match to MIT-CMU - the only difference between this license and MIT-CMU is:
- “and its associated documentation” instead of just “and its documentation” in the first sentence (Permission to use…)
- use of the Oxford comma: “use, copy, modify, and distribute”
- a comma added after “copies”, as in: “provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies, and that both…”
- a comma after “specific” in last line, as in: “ pertaining to distraction of the software without specific, written…”
- “prior permission” instead of “permission” in last sentence of first paragraph.

I can also see (by just doing a naked-eye analysis) how this might also match to a variation of the HPND.

What do the other lawyers think though about the difference between this and MIT-CMU? Are these slight variations something we might simply capture with markup and then this license would be a valid match to MIT-CMU?

I made a new issue in Github repo to track here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/750

Thanks,
Jilayne