Re: Including more licenses in 12.5
On 20 Jun 2006, Frank Küster verbalised:
> Indeed. If we take "space savings" as the main argument to include
> a license in common-licenses, then the GFDL should be in there. On
> the other hand, if we connect a statement to the inclusion, like
> "this is a license that Debian likes", we should not include it.
> But on the other hand, we could then include other licenses that are
> maybe less common, but are free without doubt, may have their
> benefits in certain circumstances, and maybe have been improved
> specifically because of Debian's wishes/negotiations.
Since the practical effect of having licenses in
common-licenses is that packages do not include the text of the
license in the .deb (and raise issues about distributability stand
alone, and make it harder ofr people not running debian to see the
real license), I think that merely liking licenses should not be
reason to stop shipping the license in the .deb.
I do think that the GFDL passes the criteria for inclusion, in
All heiresses are beautiful. John Dryden
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C