[arch-general] License for libdrm packages
eschwartz at archlinux.org
Thu May 23 23:14:43 UTC 2019
On 5/23/19 6:48 PM, ProgAndy wrote:
> Am 24.05.19 um 00:21 schrieb mar77i via arch-general:
>> 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).
> Those packages follow the exception published in the wiki which
> allows license=('MIT') if you also include the exact license text with
> copyright notice in /usr/share/licenses/pkgname. This text has been
> there since the creation of the wiki page in November 2009 and I
> believe before that it was on another wiki page that has since been
> deleted without preserving its history, so I don't know where it came
> from. Should this really be declared as wrong now?
Easy answer! The wiki is a more in-depth discussion of what the manpage
says, and therefore takes precedence.
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 1601 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the arch-general