You are not logged in.
One of my AUR packages is for oolite-git .
Upstream added code to create PDFs as user documentation .
That code uses typst (in extra repo) but also needs a binary plugin that is published under the MIT license.
As far as I can tell this is the only portion of oolite sourcecode that uses this license.
The code & license are present in the sourcetree at Documentation/docs/typst/
It is only used at buildtime and not part of the resulting package.
Should the PKGBUILD mention the usage of this code ?
If so, how ?
Could there be legal consequences of using/including tools that have a different license then the vast majority of the sourcecode ?
Disliking systemd intensely, but not satisfied with alternatives so focusing on taming systemd.
clean chroot building not flexible enough ?
Try clean chroot manager by graysky
Offline
I thought license=() was package metadata describing the licences of the packaged software, rather than a comprehensive list of every licence associated w/ anything involved in its compilation...
So IMO, in your case, since the MIT-licensed code is only used at build time and isn't included in the resulting package, documenting it in a comment should be sufficient from a packaging-metadata perspective. I don't think it needs to be added to license=()
....
Gentoo is where dreams and compile times go to die.
And you'll definitely find me talking to a wall :-)
Offline