Great, I mis-posted that to users not dev. Gah.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Greg Hendershott <greghendersh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: >> Yes, the duplicate files bother me, too. I think removing the >> duplicates will require yet another little twist in the package system >> (since the files originate from individual packages), so we've left >> them for now. > > At Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:45:50 -0500, Neil Van Dyke wrote: >> I'm not a lawyer, but I figured that, for most packages I author, I >> probably don't *need* to include the full text of a well-known license >> (e.g., LGPLv3). Instead, I give the copyright notice, state that the >> license using the recognized full name of the license (and a URL), and >> then some disclaimers. > > Speaking of referencing rather than copying licenses, and third party pkgs: > > It would be helpful for some sort of canonical license ID or URI to be > part of the official metadata in info.rkt and on pkgs.racket-lang.org. > > That way someone could filter packages by license when browsing the > pkg web site. > > Also, it could enable `raco pkg` (or a third-party utility) to do a > license compatibility check down the dependency chain. > > Even just "license missing" would be helpful to know, transitively. > Plus there's license compatibility. (That taxonomy or permissiveness > ordinality doesn't necessarily need to be baked into the license URIs; > it could come from elsewhere, but use the URIs.) _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
