Re: [arch-general] Add MIT Licence to /usr/share/licences/common
It states MIT/BSD are special cases, just out of curiousity, what makes them special that they cannot be added? -- John Ramsden On Sat, Nov 3, 2018, at 1:22 AM, Bruno Pagani via arch-general wrote:
Hi,
Le 03/11/2018 à 08:46, Stephen Gregoratto via arch-general a écrit :
I'm in the process of adding a new package to the AUR, when I noticed that the MIT Licence - which this program is licensed under - is not available under /usr/share/licenses/common. Seeing that it's a fairly popular license that is copied by a number of packages (many of them Rust based: find /usr/share/licenses -name "*MIT*"), I think it would be beneficial if there could be a copy of the MIT license in the licenses package.
I've attached a diff of my edits to licenses trunk. Note that I copied the licence file from rust/LICENCE-MIT and ran updpkgsums. Also, it seems the PHP-3.0 licence has changed, and its checksum has updated as well.
Please read https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD#license
Especially the first bullet point.
Regards, Bruno
Email had 1 attachment: + signature.asc 1k (application/pgp-signature)
On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 11:53:45AM -0700, John Ramsden via arch-general wrote:
It states MIT/BSD are special cases, just out of curiousity, what makes them special that they cannot be added?
I believe the reasoning for that is they include program-specific copyright information, so you can't just use a reference copy of the license in this case. - Luke English
-- John Ramsden
On Sat, Nov 3, 2018, at 1:22 AM, Bruno Pagani via arch-general wrote:
Hi,
Le 03/11/2018 à 08:46, Stephen Gregoratto via arch-general a écrit :
I'm in the process of adding a new package to the AUR, when I noticed that the MIT Licence - which this program is licensed under - is not available under /usr/share/licenses/common. Seeing that it's a fairly popular license that is copied by a number of packages (many of them Rust based: find /usr/share/licenses -name "*MIT*"), I think it would be beneficial if there could be a copy of the MIT license in the licenses package.
I've attached a diff of my edits to licenses trunk. Note that I copied the licence file from rust/LICENCE-MIT and ran updpkgsums. Also, it seems the PHP-3.0 licence has changed, and its checksum has updated as well.
Please read https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD#license
Especially the first bullet point.
Regards, Bruno
Email had 1 attachment: + signature.asc 1k (application/pgp-signature)
Saturday, November 3, 2018 7:53 PM, John Ramsden via arch-general
It states MIT/BSD are special cases, just out of curiousity, what makes them special that they cannot be added?
Look at them: https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT For one, they're copyright notices. And they're individual for each project. The license states that the above copyright notice must be included in the license which is distributed with the project. So they can't be generalized. cheers! mar77i Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
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.
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 00:24:14 +0100
mpan
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.
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. :)
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? - L
participants (5)
-
Doug Newgard
-
John Ramsden
-
Luke English
-
mar77i＠protonmail.ch
-
mpan