[arch-general] Add MIT Licence to /usr/share/licences/common

[Stephen Gregoratto via arch-general]

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.

[Bruno Pagani via arch-general]

Hi,

Post by Stephen Gregoratto via arch-general
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

[John Ramsden via arch-general]

It states MIT/BSD are special cases, just out of curiousity, what makes them special that they cannot be added?
--
John Ramsden

Post by Bruno Pagani via arch-general
Hi,

Post by Stephen Gregoratto via arch-general
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
+ signature.asc
1k (application/pgp-signature)

[Luke English]

Post by John Ramsden via arch-general
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

Post by John Ramsden via arch-general
--
John Ramsden

Post by Bruno Pagani via arch-general
Hi,

Post by Stephen Gregoratto via arch-general
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
+ signature.asc
1k (application/pgp-signature)

[mar77i via arch-general]

Post by John Ramsden via arch-general
It states MIT/BSD are special cases, just out of curiousity, what makes them special that they cannot be added?

Look at them: https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

For one, they're copyright notices. And they're individual for each project. The license states that the above copyright notice must be included in the license which is distributed with the project. So they can't be generalized.

cheers!
mar77i


Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

[mpan]

Post by John Ramsden via arch-general
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.

[Doug Newgard via arch-general]

On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 00:24:14 +0100

Post by mpan

Post by John Ramsden via arch-general
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.

[mpan]

Post by Doug Newgard via arch-general

Post by mpan

Post by John Ramsden via arch-general
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. :)

[Luke English]

Post by mpan

Post by Doug Newgard via arch-general

Post by mpan

Post by John Ramsden via arch-general
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. :)

You didn't mention the word copyright once, you just managed to confuse
people, myself included. Orwell said "never use a long word where a
short one will do", and this question has already been answered multiple
times. Can we close the thread now?

- L