Bug#173737: GNU Free Documentation License should be added to common-licenses
Hi,
>>"Ola" == Ola Lundqvist <opal@debian.org> writes:
>> Is it? Can we see some numbers, please? My stance on this has
>> been that in order for us to state that a license is a common license
>> it ought to have a palpable fraction of Debian packages that use it
>> -- say, 5%, or 10%, or something.
Ola> I can not sorry. I did not say that it is a widely used and
Ola> accepted license in Debian (which I should have written of course). It
Ola> seems to be widely used and widely accepted outside debian though. I
Ola> do not know how many debian packages that has this license.
But that is not a good rationale to include things in
common-licenses. Licenses popular outside Debian (MS licenses would
lead that fray ;-) are not relevant; the original idea was to reduce
disk usage due to massive duplication; and thus offsetting the fact
that the license was indirectly referenced with disk space savings.
The reason that all possible licenses are not in the common
license directory is that not including the license directly in
/usr/share/doc/<package> requires anyone looking for a license to
take an extra step to find it; and only a substantial saving in disk
space justifies that extra step.
I do not think the criteria has been met.
Ola> And I do not have any good script to tell you any statistics, sorry. :(
Ola> I still think it can be good to list it in the common-license dir though.
I am afraid that I have not been swayed by this mere
attestation of personal preference.
manoj
--
The following two statements are usually both true: There's not
enough documentation. There's too much documentation. Larry Wall in
<199709020026.RAA08431@wall.org>
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: