Re: Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I think the general feeling was that by the time we have around 250
> packages in the archive or so that are using it, it probably warrants
> inclusion, since we know that its use is going to grow in the long run.
> Last time I checked, which was quite some time ago, there were *way*
> fewer than that, and the surge of packages predicted in the previous
> thread appears not to have happened.
> Do you have a feel for how many there are now?
Nearly a year later, I've now written a script to check through the
archive for usage of various licenses. For the Artistic 2.0 license, it
(?m)^License:.*Artistic-2 (DEP-5 format)
The Artistic License 2\.0 (text found in the license)
Based on that search, there are still only 20 binary packages in the
archive covered by the Artistic 2.0 license.
Given that, this license really isn't common in Debian, and hence doesn't
warrant inclusion in common-licenses. For comparison's sake, the
least-used license included in common-licenses (the GFDL) is used by 875
I'm therefore marking this bug as rejected, although it will remain open
for some time if anyone else disagrees and wants to make a case for its
inclusion. Certainly if the license becomes more broadly used in the
future, it can be proposed for inclusion again at that time.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>