>>> 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. Approximately the same as what I’ve just said, but less verbose/precise. :)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
