On Sun, Nov 04, 2018 at 01:21:28AM +0100, mpan wrote:
It states MIT/BSD are special cases, just out of curiousity, what makes them special that they cannot be added?
Because there is no MIT or 1/2/3-clause BSD license. There are hundreds of independent, barely related licenses that are quite similar and, therefore, are considered together as a class of MIT licens*es* (note the plural), 1/2/3-clause BSD licens*es* etc. Despite many of them may be very similar and, in fact, usually they share huge portion of the text, they are formally different agreements.
In the above explanation I do not support any of the sides. Whether classes that share 100% of important content and 99% of formatting content, should be considered similar enough to have a shared entry in Arch’s licenses directory, is a separate decision. I am just explaining.
It has nothing to do with any of that. It's simply that those licenses have project-specific copyright information added to them and cannot be generic.
Approximately the same as what I’ve just said, but less verbose/precise. :)
You didn't mention the word copyright once, you just managed to confuse people, myself included. Orwell said "never use a long word where a short one will do", and this question has already been answered multiple times. Can we close the thread now?