On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 00:24:14 +0100 mpan <archml-y1vf3axu@xxxxxxx> 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.
