Bug#618874: chat
Extract of chat
(16:03:39) nthykier: for #618874 I think the problem is reliably
detecting them; does DEP-5 list any common non-free licenses?
(16:04:18) nthykier: Also we need a DEP-5 parser/validator first
(16:05:16) periapt: nthykier: [#618874] I would have thought you would
have a whitelist and a blacklist and assume a low probability on
anything not in either list.
(16:05:58) periapt: nthykier: [#618874] Yes of course and the format is
not 100% stable yet. But I think there may be a parser already. I'll check.
(16:06:05) nthykier: whitelist (free licenses) and blacklist (non-free)?
(16:06:20) nthykier: there is that model-config perl module as I recall
(16:07:07) nthykier: it was up on d-d@l.d.o a while back (or maybe it
was d-mentors@l.d.o)
(16:08:26) periapt: nthykier: I think you have the idea.
(16:09:44) nthykier: and you would what a tag if all licenses are in the
whitelist and the package is not in main or if one license is in
blacklist and the package is in main?
(16:10:25) periapt: nthykier: yes that that is correct.
(16:12:24) nthykier: okay
(16:13:42) periapt: nythkier: Actually the logic needs to be a bit more
complex. The license whitelist/blacklist would not distinguish between
main and contrib. You would need to look at the dependencies for that.
(16:15:37) nthykier: right, main or contrib
(16:23:03) periapt: nthykier: it is libconfig-model-perl, especially
Config::Model::Backend:: Debian:: Dpkg::Copyright
(16:24:16) nthykier: yeah, looks like something I have seen before
Reply to: