[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#481491: debian-policy: please add LPPL v1.3a to Policy

Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> writes:

> In the moment we have the situation that we are requested to add the
> license to all TL packages, instead of just adding it to one and put
> only referers into the others (#473216). This gives us 1.8 MB of license
> files, which could be saved of the LPPL would be in base-files.

More relevantly than the total size, IMO (1.8MB isn't really very much) is
that according to popcon, one-seventh of our systems have at least
texlive-base installed.  If every texlive-base installation would benefit
from having LPPL in common-licenses and most installations involve more
than one package with the LPPL, that looks like a fairly reasonable case
for common-licenses to me.

It's not as strong of a case as the Apache 2.0 license had (nearly half of
our popcon-reporting systems have at least apache2.2-common installed),
but one-seventh is still a lot of systems.

Manoj's suggested guide was 5% of the binary packages; that's probably a
higher bar, and I'm not sure if TL meets that one; that would be about
4000 binary packages using the license, and we added the Apache license
based on only about 250.  I wonder if something like 10% of
popcon-reporting systems having at least two packages using that license
installed would be a better metric.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: