On 8/23/07, Matthew Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Matthew, > > Matthew East wrote: > > > Just starting to read the PPAQuickStart wiki page, I discovered that > > both on that page and in the PPA terms of service, it's necessary for > > one of the licenses listed on http://opensource.org/licenses/category > > to apply to the package. > > > > What is the position for packages which contain material which is > > distributed under licenses which aren't in that list but which are > > still free? > > [...] > > > Can anyone clarify? > > Thank you for the question. I shall raise this in today's Launchpad > developer meeting and get an answer for you.
Hi Matthew(s), I didn't attend the devel-meeting today. How was the discussion ? On Ubuntu, we rely on archive-admins reviews (during queue NEW time) to ensure source licences still coping with Ubuntu-Policy. Beforehand, I can say that ensuring (automatically reviewing) sources licence is as much *blue-sky* as it is wanted in Soyuz. We gave a significant step during 1.1.8, storing the source 'copyright' (debian/copyright in deb packages) text in a separated field in DB, so it can be easily exposed via UI and it is potentially searchable/scanned. Nonetheless, it is still requiring a large amount of human-interpretation to find out the respective binary licence (specially when we have mixed licences, LGPL + GPL is commonest case). Whatever algorithm we choose to restrict source upload to a established set of licences, it might not work very well. This situation suggests that we would be better providing a UI mechanism for something like "licence-review-nomination". It sounds HR-wise expensive, but it could be easily delegated to the community. What do you think ? [] -- Celso Providelo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- launchpad-users mailing list launchpad-users@lists.canonical.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/launchpad-users
