On Sun, Nov 04, 2018 at 01:21:28AM +0100, mpan 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. > 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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
