Ulrich Mueller posted on Sat, 06 Oct 2012 16:14:57 +0200 as excerpted: > Alternatively, we could introduce an own "metapackage" license label for > these packages (suggested by Matija Šuklje to [email protected]) and add it > to the appropriate license groups. Text would be as follows: > > ╓────[ licenses/metapackage ] > ║ This is a metapackage that (itself) installs no files, therefore no > ║ license is needed. > ║ > ║ This does not in any way imply under which licenses the packages in it > ║ are distributed. Check the metapackage's dependencies for their actual > ║ license terms. > ╙────
Useful idea. LGTM. Thanks to all those working on this. Licenses are important to get right, but working on them can't be particularly enjoyable. Your work is appreciated. =:^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
