Re: QPL in /usr/share/comon-licences (was: Re: wnpp: ITP: apc -- Alternative PHP Cache speeds up loading PHP scripts in web servers)
On 11 Jun 2001, John Hasler wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Any license used by more than x% of Debian packages?
> Luca writes:
> > We don't need to formalize evrything: just do what make sense.
> But think of the flame war we can have over what x should be. We can also
> argue about whether the rule should be percentage-based at all, or if it
> should be something like "the top ten licenses" or "any license used by
> more than n packages".
> I'm not trying to propose a formal policy. It's just an off-the-cuff
> suggestion.
The advantage of having a common license in common-licenses is that it saves
disk space.
If the primary concern is saving disk space in the archives, then any license
that appears in more than one binary package is a candidate for placement in
common-licenses.
If the primary concern is saving disk space for our users, then any license
that appears in more than one binary package *of priority standard or higher*,
or a license that appears in a significant number of optional packages, should
be a candidate for placement in common-licenses.
I think the second set of criteria most closely fits the purpose of the
common-licenses package, as I understand it. OTOH, the meaning of the package
may actually be 'Licenses commonly found in Debian of which the maintainer of
this package approves', which is the maintainer's prerogative as well, I
suppose. ;)
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Reply to: