Re: Licenses not in /usr/share/common-licenses
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 05:10:07PM +0800, Yao Wei (魏銘廷) wrote:
> Creative Commons are also a common licenses which many artworks are
> using it, but it does not necessary to attach the legal code on it. Is
> it reasonable to put Creative Commons licenses (at least
> DFSG-compatible ones) into a single package like
> creative-commons-licenses?
There's one argument in favour of centralizing license texts: reducing
replication in the archive. (Correct me if there's another). This is
diminished somewhat by the high-compressibility of license texts (avg.
~33% for the common license texts.)
On the other hand, Debian packages are sometimes distributed outside of the
distribution channels (apt etc.). Without the texts in-.deb, they don't
self-describe their own license terms. I think this is an attractive
feature of packages (and an argument against the existing licenses in
base-files. One that no doubt has been argued before.)
Reply to: