* we should have the MIT licence in our common licences folder
The MIT license is like the BSD license in that it's customized per package.
* we should add all possible CC licences in our common licences folder ... maybe informing creative commons that we support their full scheme of licencing in our licence handling (public relations, networking *g*)
Our original policy was to only distribute a common license in our license package if it was used by two or more packages. Do any of our packages have CC licenses?
* LGPL2 = LGPL2.1 ? and if some pkg uses 2.0? our LGPL2 is indeed the 2.1 version
I didn't know there was a difference between LGPL2 and LGPL2.1. Do more than two packages use the LGPL2.0?
* some pkgs have licence-formatting issues (Apache instead of APACHE or gpl instead of GPL ... we change the formating? licences are all-caps always?)
That's how I wrote the namcap rule. License data should have the same case as the common license directory. Jason