Rejected: Bug#381729: Artistic Licence considered non-free
This proposal (and its current title) were a bit confusingly phrased, but
the essence is to request that the Artistic license be replaced by the
Artistic 2.0 license in common-licenses.
There's another bug (#458385) requesting inclusion of the Artistic 2.0
license that includes more discussion of use in the archive, so that
portion of this bug is a duplicate. As for removing the existing Artistic
license, it's in widespread use since nearly every Perl 5 module is
released under it. Removing licenses from common-licenses is sort of like
removing packages from Essential; it's not something we can do without
very strong justification and a lot of work. And in this case, the
original Artistic license qualifies for inclusion anyway.
Accordingly, I'm rejecting this proposal.
If you disagree with the rejection of this proposal for reasons that
weren't raised in the prior bug discussion, please raise them in this bug.
If you disagree with the rejection of this proposal for reasons already
raised in the bug, the path of appeal for a Policy proposal rejection is
to the tech-ctte. See http://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte for how to
make an appeal to the tech-ctte.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: