Bug#79538: marked as done (Include FDL in common-licenses)
Your message dated Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:35:45 -0600
with message-id <[🔎] 878yv84qzi.fsf@glaurung.green-gryphon.com>
and subject line Bug#182916: adding GFDL license and license manpages to base-files
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 13 Dec 2000 19:29:49 +0000
>From sgk@netbox.kleinmann.com Wed Dec 13 13:29:49 2000
Return-path: <sgk@netbox.kleinmann.com>
Received: from mail.kleinmann.com (susan.bogus) [206.82.50.227]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 146Hb3-0003zR-00; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:29:49 -0600
Received: from kleinmann.com (sgk@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by susan.bogus (8.11.1/8.11.1/Debian 8.11.0-6) with ESMTP id eBDJTr906579;
Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:29:53 -0500
Message-Id: <200012131929.eBDJTr906579@susan.bogus>
X-Authentication-Warning: susan.bogus: Host sgk@localhost [127.0.0.1] claimed to be kleinmann.com
Reply-to: sgk@netbox.kleinmann.com
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
cc: sgk@debian.org
Subject: FDL is missing from common-licenses
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:29:53 -0500
From: "Susan G. Kleinmann" <sgk@netbox.kleinmann.com>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Package: base-files
Version: 2.2.4
Severity: Normal
The debhelper script dh_make inserts a sample manpage.sgml.ex file into
a new debian directory when a package is being built. This sample file
refers to the Free Documentation License by the file name:
/usr/share/common-licenses/FDL
However, this file is not present (at least on my system).
I guess it should be in the base-files package.
It can be obtained from: http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/fdl.html
Susan Kleinmann
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 182916-done) by bugs.debian.org; 21 Mar 2003 16:41:15 +0000
>From srivasta@debian.org Fri Mar 21 10:41:14 2003
Return-path: <srivasta@debian.org>
Received: from host-12-107-230-171.dtccom.net (glaurung.green-gryphon.com) [12.107.230.171]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18wPZw-0002qG-00; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:41:13 -0600
Received: from glaurung.green-gryphon.com (srivasta@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-2) with ESMTP id h2LGZmfW027386;
Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:35:48 -0600
Received: (from srivasta@localhost)
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Debian-2) id h2LGZjKD027382;
Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:35:45 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: glaurung.green-gryphon.com: srivasta set sender to srivasta@debian.org using -f
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50.17 (via feedmail 8 I)
To: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>
Cc: 182916@bugs.debian.org, 182916-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#182916: adding GFDL license and license manpages to
base-files
From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>
Organization: The Debian Project
X-URL: http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090017 (Oort Gnus v0.17) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)
(i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Time: Fri Mar 21 10:35:45 2003
X-Face: #q.#]5@vq!Jz+E0t_/;Y^gTjR\T^"B'fbeuVGiyKrvbfKJl!^e|e:iu(kJ6c|QYB57LP*|t
&YlP~HF/=h:GA6o6W@I#deQL-%#.6]!z:6Cj0kd#4]>*D,|0djf'CVlXkI,>aV4\}?d_KEqsN{Nnt7
78"OsbQ["56/!nisvyB/uA5Q.{)gm6?q.j71ww.>b9b]-sG8zNt%KkIa>xWg&1VcjZk[hBQ>]j~`Wq
Xl,y1a!(>6`UM{~'X[Y_,Bv+}=L\SS*mA8=s;!=O`ja|@PEzb&i0}Qp,`Z\:6:OmRi*
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:35:45 -0600
In-Reply-To: <15967.59109.732895.951328@gargle.gargle.HOWL> (Matthias
Klose's message of "Fri, 28 Feb 2003 23:47:01 +0100")
Message-ID: <[🔎] 878yv84qzi.fsf@glaurung.green-gryphon.com>
References: <15967.59109.732895.951328@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delivered-To: 182916-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=4.0
tests=IN_REP_TO,NOSPAM_INC,REFERENCES,SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,
SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_GNUS_UA,
X_AUTH_WARNING
version=2.44
X-Spam-Level:
Hi,
My stance has been that in order to be classified as common,
a license ought to be actually common -- say, a rule of thumb: be at
least used in 5% of the packages.
The rationale behind adding licenses to the common-licenses
category is to prevent excessive duplication of the license text, and
prevent useless waste of disk space; this saving in disk space is
supposed to offset the additional effort to determine what the
license is.
So, if there are at least 5% of the source packages (or
whatever number emrges from the debate that is sure to follow), we
can include the license into common license. A nice, objective
criteria for admission ;-)
manoj
--
I know it's weird, but it does make it easier to write poetry in perl.
:-) Larry Wall in <7865@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
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: