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

Bug#435476: marked as done (base-files: add MIT License as a common license)

Your message dated Sat, 07 Jun 2008 22:26:09 -0700
with message-id <[🔎] 877id0sdji.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
and subject line Rejected: Bug#435476: add MIT License as a common license
has caused the Debian Bug report #435476,
regarding base-files: add MIT License as a common license
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
435476: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=435476
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: base-files
Version: 4.0.0
Severity: wishlist

I've seen plenty of instances of the usage of MIT License. Wouldn't it
be optimal to include it as a common license?


-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.21-1-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=sv_SE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=sv_SE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Versions of packages base-files depends on:
ii  base-passwd               3.5.11         Debian base system master password
ii  gawk [awk]                1:3.1.5.dfsg-4 GNU awk, a pattern scanning and pr
ii  mawk [awk]                1.3.3-11       a pattern scanning and text proces

base-files recommends no packages.

-- no debconf information

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
This proposal requests adding the MIT license (the Expat license version
of it) to common-licenses.

As explained in the bug, the minor wording changes to this license when
used by different packages make it not as common as it looks.  In
addition, there is a general preference on the Policy list for including
short licenses in debian/copyright rather than adding the redirection and
the requirement that the package be distributed along-side base-files.
The disk space savings that apply for licenses like the GPL don't apply
for these short, three-paragraph licenses.

I'm therefore 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/>

--- End Message ---
Reply to: