Hi,
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Andreas Tille <
andreas@an3as.eu> wrote:
> >
> > 'main' : DFSG Free
> > 'contrib' : 'DFSG free, but needs non-free components
> > 'non-free' : non-free
>
> Sound perfect. May be we need to shorten the text for contrib a bit since
> it might spoil the layout.
Hmm. We can think about it.
> > The license for prospective packages is obtained from UDD and the license
> > of new_packages should be unknown . Am I right ?
>
> Yes, that's correct for the moment. I just realise that we should
> enhance the ftpnew importer from UDD to parse the license as well. When
> I wrote this importer DEP5 formated copyright files were not that
> popular.
>
> But for the moment we leave it like this. Please put the license field
> for new packages on your todo list.
>
> Hmmm, thinking twice about it: New packages are also featuring a
> section field. So we can even now tell whether the license is "DFSG
> Free", ... This might change according to the acceptance from ftpmaster
> but this is at least the knowledge we currently have.
I have added the license information for new packages along with license info for official and prospective packages.
> I think you could implement this right now
Implemented and pushed to the repo. Please check.
> and we leave the license
> field for new packages for the long term todo list with low relevance.
Done. Added this to my todo list.
Regards,
Akshita