Ambigous license

[AMDmi3]

COPYING file says that syck is distributed under BSD license, however MIT license text is listed instead (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License). Though license terms are similar if not equal, it'd be nice to clarify which specific license is used. I, as package maintainer, am quite confused which license I should specify in the package metadata.

[indeyets]

I'm not the original author, so do not feel to be in position to change the license (even if it is ambiguous). also, syck barely should be packaged these days. It is seriously outdated. libyaml is a much better choice

[AMDmi3]

I'm not asking to change the license, I just ask it to clarify it - if it's MIT, the text should say it's MIT. Maybe you have original author contacts so he can approve this change?

syck barely should be packaged these days

I'm just maintaining legacy ports. It may still be used by someone, however it's true that in FreeBSD ports collection the only consumers it has are its python, php and perl bindings.

[Daveawb]

@AMDmi3 I do believe that you are a living being using this software, as such you shall be punished to the full extent of the law. ;-)

https://github.com/indeyets/syck/blob/master/COPYING