The paint one was clear (that code is fully gone), I am less sure on this one. I am not sure how far you have deform code to no longer be considered "derived" ("this is my grand parent's axe, my parent replaced the handle and I replaced the head"). I would like to consult a lawyer before we merge this.

The baseline to compare to should be what ever the initial code was?

I'm sending an email about this now via private channels.

Update: legal is backed up, review is still pending.

Any update?

Re-pinged on the legal front.

If we do not need it, but carry it anyway I think there is little down side, but if we need to have it and strip it I think we are risking a relatively large down side (but IANAL), out of an abundance of caution pushing to 3.4.

Sorry, the update on this got lost in my mental queue

The advice is to, if we are sure all the code has been re-written, we should add this text someplace in the docs:

"Where is PIL?
Many years ago, Matplotlib used to include code from PIL. Since then, the code has changed a lot - the organizing principle and methods of operation are now quite different. Because our review of the codebase showed that all the code that came from PIL was removed or rewritten, we have removed the PIL licensing information. If you want PIL, you can get it at ."

I can put that snippet at the top of tkagg.cpp if you want.

That seems like a good place to put it.

done