Thinking about what's missing in our library coverage

[Ian Lynagh]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 01:45:22PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> 
> It's clear that the licensing issue is going to be controversial and
> will take some time. I'm not sure it is sensible to try and work it out
> before the next major release, given that the higher priority has to be
> agreeing the procedure for adding packages. If we do not get around to
> agreeing the licensing issue then the default position has to be no new
> licenses 'til we do work it out properly.

Or to put it another way, decide that "Licence is BSD or MIT" (or
whatever the list really is) is a requirement for the upcoming major
release.

I'd agree with that. Generally, I think that conservatism is the best
answer for the platform. It will be a lot worse to put something in and
then decide to take it out again, than to decide to leave it out for now
and then put it in a few months later.


Thanks
Ian