do MIT-licensed packages need EULA=(non-empty) ?

[mralusw]

For example I see that https://github.com/wimpysworld/deb-get/blob/main/01-main/packages/mdview has an EULA (thus prompting for confirmation). But it's MIT-licensed, just like deb-get itself. I somehow doubt that among all the other packages (none of which has a non-empty EULA=, except for chrome), there are no other MIT's.

[github-actions]

Hello there 👋
Thanks for submitting your first issue to the deb-get project 🐛 We'll try and take a look at your issue soon ⏲

In the meantime you might want to join the Wimpys World Discord 🗣 where we have a large community of Linux 🐧 enthusiasts and passionate open source developers 🧑‍💻

You might also be interested in following Wimpys World Twitch 📡 channel where Wimpy streams let's code video, including this project, several times a week. A back catalog of past live stream and other Linux related content is available on Wimpys World YouTube 📺 channel.

[philclifford]

IANAL, but no in general you're right - it is solely there to meet requirements of the likes of chrome.
If, however, the author of an app adds a link to their own license in their own PR then so-be-it. It may be MIT now but could change. One might discuss with them whether there is value in provoking an action by the end-user that purports to "accept" an MIT license. @mapitman might decide to remove that line if he felt there was no value in forcing users to answer an EULA prompt for mdview
It might also be an area where the CONTRIBUTING.md could be improved.

[mapitman]

This is the second thing I kind of messed up on when submitting the pull request for my application. I'll submit a PR later to remove this.