Re: Bug#291460: Inclusion of Apache Software License versions in /usr/share/common-licenses
Bas Wijnen <wijnen@debian.org> writes:
> 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?
I'd love to see some sort of guideline for this so that we could make
incorporation of new licenses into Policy more objective in the future.
I do agree that either priorities or popcon installations or both should
be taken into account as well as sheer quantity of packages.
So far, I think most of the decisions have been fairly "obvious," although
there's another pending open bug about the Artistic 2.0 license that's
less obvious to me.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: