on Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 06:10:11PM -0500, Susan G. Kleinmann (sgk@netbox.kleinmann.com) wrote: > It would be convenient/efficient if the Apache software license were > included with other licenses in /usr/share/common-licenses. I think > this could be accomplished either by adding it to the base-files package, > or by having the apache-common package place it there. Here's a thought, which might also help rationalize the whole license tracking thing -- then again, maybe not. A set of license packages. Currently, several of the licenses are included as part of the base install. If instead we had a set of packages for licenses (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT, Apache, Artistic, MozPL, ...), and required that packages which used a particular license listed this as a dependency, we might address several issues: - Duplication of license text within the distribution. Though it's not huge, it becomes critical particularly in small-format installations. I estimated that archiving seperated copies of the GNU GPL would require some 80 MB for a reasonably full-featured Debian install. Worse, this is data which must be transmitted with package updates. As licenses change infrequently, rationalizing them into packages might serve a double bonus. - Clarifying license dependencies. I used a few simple text tools to try to determine what licenses are associated with what packages a few weeks ago. Reporting standards vary widely, even for code covered by the same license. The "copyright" file might be anything from a brief "GNU GPL v. 2.1" to a detailed account of attempts to contact or track down a developer. - Increasing the accuracy of copyright accounting tools. vrms uses manual, and sometimes inaccurate, data in reporting on the use of free and unfree packages, as Nick Moffit observed recently in a bug report on the package that it was insulting his integrity. By tying licensing to the packaging system, copyrights could be ascribed as free or non-free, and vrms would become a query against the package metadata. - Possible solution to the problem RMS raised about distributions of packages within Debian without the required GPL copy. The strict dependency would guarantee that this happened within the Debian infrastructure, and might be a possible path to compliance. I've no real idea on the issues in implementing this as part of the packaging system. It seems to me that this involves a policy, rather than a tools modification, and that it should work fairly effectively within the current .deb and apt systems. I also don't know if this has been recommended before -- anyone got a historical perspective on this? Thoughts? -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ Evangelist, Zelerate, Inc. http://www.zelerate.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org
Attachment:
pgpuqiWVjt_df.pgp
Description: PGP signature