Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> 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...
