Re: Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
Jonathan Yu <email@example.com> writes:
> I notice this has been discussed quite a bit previously (though
> something like 18 months ago), and the general idea I have gathered from
> reading is that the Artistic License, version 2.0 is not yet popular
> enough to warrant inclusion in common-licenses.
I think the general feeling was that by the time we have around 250
packages in the archive or so that are using it, it probably warrants
inclusion, since we know that its use is going to grow in the long run.
Last time I checked, which was quite some time ago, there were *way* fewer
than that, and the surge of packages predicted in the previous thread
appears not to have happened.
Do you have a feel for how many there are now?
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>