On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 08:12:13PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes: > > > I did a check today, and there are over 230 binary packages in the > > archive with the Apache License. (I believe essentially all of them are > > Apache 2.0, although the simple grep I did made that a bit harder to > > check.) > > > > I think that reaches the threshold for making it worthwhile to include > > the license in base-files, particularly given that it's been requested > > several times, although we don't really have a formal policy on how many > > packages are enough packages. > > > > Cc'ing Santiago Vila just FYI; I know you've delegated the decision to > > the Policy group. > > I have gotten no further feedback on this proposal. I would like to > resolve this bug for the next Policy release one way or the other. Could > others reading the Policy list please express an opinion on whether we > should add the Apache 2.0 license to the list of common-licenses? Some idea about the number of packages which is enough seems useful. I think it should also be taken into account how many people have the package installed. That is: the only reason not to put a license in there, is that it increases the system size for people who have less than 2 packages with that license installed. This means that just 2 packages with a license is enough if both those packages are Essential: yes. (I don't suggest to add licenses for just 2 packages; there is also a small problem that copyright files get slightly less readable when a pointer dereference is needed. This isn't a problem for any license which is seriously considered, though, I think.) Apache itself has quite some installations, which means that 230 packages in total is easily above the treshold IMO. Still, some guideline (it shouldn't be a hard rule IMO) about what is enough to add the license would be good IMO. Do others have ideas about how many packages are enough? Do you agree that priorities should be counted? Are there other things? Popcon scores for example? Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature