[08:35:34] <leot> Good morning to the entire Pillow community! I was going to update Pillow package in pkgsrc (the NetBSD packages collection) and I've noticed that the `Standard PIL License' is like the ISC... except (and that can be an important part): ISC says `[...] with or without fee [...]' while PIL `[...] without fee [...]'. Is it intentional?
[08:42:12] <wiredfool> god I hate licensing questions. ...
[08:42:37] <wiredfool> the actual text that I see going back is "Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its associated documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted"
[08:42:51] <wiredfool> specifically, "purpose and without fee"
[08:42:58] <wiredfool> which seems like a word was left out
[08:47:34] <wiredfool> However, going back to PIL, which was forked into pillow, we get the exact same text, so it's not mutated with time
[08:51:15] <wiredfool> and, compoundnig the whole thing, the original author basically dropped off the net which prompted the pillow thing.
[08:52:39] <leot> In 1.7.8 (and also in the Debian `Copyright file') it's just the MIT one.
[08:53:27] <leot> http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/p/pillow/pillow_3.2.0-1_copyright (but also available in pypi.python.org Pillow 1.7.8 page)
[08:57:58] <wiredfool> PIL 1.1.7 was the basis for all of the Pillow fork. (it's also the end of the line for PIL)
[08:58:56] <wiredfool> so the core licence is what 1.1.7 said, barring anything from Fredrik
[08:59:47] <wiredfool> To my knowledge, there hasn't been a formal relicensing since then.
[09:00:46] <wiredfool> That debian copyright file also has the "any purpose and without fee"