[arch-general] License for libdrm packages

mpan archml-y1vf3axu at mpan.pl
Thu May 23 21:15:02 UTC 2019

> 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?
  I talked about the topic on #archlinux and it seems that the accepted
solution is to use 'MIT' in the `license` array, despite there is no
corresponding text in the “licenses” package, and put the text into
“/usr/share/licenses/pkgname”, despite it is not marked as 'custom' in
the `license` array. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  I still consider it illogical, but I have been outvoted. But I would
not claim that “libdrm” maintainer is wrong on using 'custom' here.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/attachments/20190523/f2d4f249/attachment.sig>

More information about the arch-general mailing list