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[1] 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[2] and I
> believe before that it was on another wiki page that has since been
> deleted without preserving its history[3], 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.
--
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
