afdesk

This PR isn't relevant after #8248

@knqyf263 i think it's ready for review. please, take a look when you have time. thanks!

> Is there a way to distinguish between the license name and the license text? Right now, I'm not sure. but I'll take a look and will show the cases.

My concern is next. Python deb packages can contain the license text inside `license` field: ```sh cat /usr/share/doc/python3.9-minimal/copyright ```  but if I understand correctly it's a mistake. [the docs](https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-field):...

My concern is that there is no a correct way to distinguish between incorrect `Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its` and correct license synopsis `TinySCHEME`...

the same situation is with `License` field inside `*.dist-info.METADATA`. some packages contain a correct license name (eg. `Pympler`): `Apache License, Version 2.0`. some undefined license (eg `zope`): `ZPL 2.1`. some...

@knqyf263 I have an idea. trying

> I want to show "unknown" for the license text. @knqyf263 Could you confirm that I understand correctly this requirement? thanks 

> I know it's not ideal, but what if checking the length and the number of newlines? > > ``` > func isLicenseName(license string) bool { > // Check text...

Right now, I can't see a good solution, but there are several options: 1. We just check text lengths, and don't update output for dpkg licenses, because it's a python's...