Re: missing licence files and incomplete licence lists

[Dave Love]

Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:

> If you look at <https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Libc#Details>, you’ll see
> “License:LGPL”, which is already more vague than what we have (following
> FSF legal advice?).  If you look at GitHub repos (yack!), Pypi, CPAN,
> Hackage, npm (doh!), well, that’s yet another level.

Yes, but...  To package something for Debian or Fedora with a
problematic (or missing) licensing, you have to resolve that, typically
with "upstream", too get it into the distribution.

> I’m interested in concrete proposals to improve the situation that take
> into account the bigger picture as well as scalability considerations.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ludo’.

I'd say consult FSF legal eagles initially, and see whether you can
piggy-back off the work the other distributions have done.  Once you
have the legal constraints, you can consider a concrete proposal.  I
think the package license field also needs generalizing somehow to allow
conjunctions and disjunctions.  I fully realize the pain of all this
from experience...