I have read that article in ArchWiki. I understand that point that MIT licences are all custom because of individual copyright line. But then I do not understand when should I use license=('MIT') instead of license=('custom')?
I have read that MIT is a set of licenses, but it is kinda unclear. I guess that if there is clear text that it is a MIT license, then I use MIT, otherwise for MIT-style licence I just use custom. Am I correct?
It's possible I misunderstood what part of this process caused confusion with you, so please elaborate your position further, I'll gladly answer or research more questions.
To answer my own question, of course I screwed it up already. Okay, so license=('custom:MIT'), license=('MIT') or license=('custom')?
manual says: put licenses from /usr/share/licenses/common into the license array, otherwise use 'custom' / 'custom:LicenseName'.
Depending on how many PKGBUILDs you've looked at in the past, you might think, of course, you put license=('MIT') for MIT licensed projects in your PKGBUILD. Which, as we now established, is incorrect, yet not actually enforced, and the more important part of getting this right is to have the original license file with the copyright notice in the package, as the document usually asks.
I think we can bikeshed over the prefered 'custom' or 'custom:MIT' details from here on, however, a quick glance at my pacman database shows that a lot of repo packages actually don't do what the manpage say, of which there are asp, wayland, sdl2... (the list goes on).
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.