[Distutils] Re: [Catalog-sig] Re: PEP 241 draft

[Carey Evans]

Sean Reifschneider <jafo@tummy.com> writes:

> To some, the "Freely-redistributable" field is more important than the
> License field.  The lack of such a field has constantly been painful in
> CPAN.  At the least, if we imply this from the License field, the PEP
> should list what licenses we imply that from.

CTAN has already done this for their packages, distinguishing "Free
software" from "Nonfree software" according to whether the license
"satisfies the criteria contained in the Debian Free Software
Guidelines".  They have a list of license keywords, and whether they
are stored in their free or nonfree hierarchy, at:

    http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/help/Catalogue/licenses.html

With the addition of old- and new-style Python licenses to this list,
I suggest we adopt CTAN's licenses and classifications.  It seems to
have worked for them for a while now.

-- 
	 Carey Evans  http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/c.evans/

	    "Quiet, you'll miss the humorous conclusion."