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)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
