[arch-general] License for libdrm packages

[Eli Schwartz]

On 5/23/19 5:15 PM, mpan wrote:
>> 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.

That most likely has to do with the fact that your own wiki link
explicitly says that is what you're supposed to do.


-- 
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1601 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/attachments/20190523/1fedba98/attachment-0001.sig>