Hi, On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Andreas Tille <[email protected]> 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
