Thinking about what's missing in our library coverage

[Duncan Coutts]

On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 08:05 -0700, Adam Wick wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 13:45 +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,


> If you're not going to work it out now, that means that any new packages
> should assume the strictest possible restriction (BSD or equivalent
> only), yes? It's a lot easier to add packages later than remove them.

Yes, I noted:

        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.

Since the current licenses in platform packages are only BSD then the
default position until we agree a license policy would have to be
BSD-only.

Duncan