Bug#487201: MPL-license
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@debian.org> writes:
> The common-licenses was done (IIRC) to save disk space, so to use such
> criteria, I would count only packages with priority >= standard, or a
> proof that most systems have the verbatim license installed many times).
That's roughly the sort of criteria that we've been using, but note that
while iceweasel is not priority: standard, it's installed by about 50% of
the popcon-reporting systems, so it's very widely installed. (Which isn't
horribly surprising.)
On the other hand, it's mostly installed on systems with plenty of disk
space.
> Personally I don't think policy should discuss so many licenses,
Well, bear in mind that we just saw a flood of this because I just caught
up from several years of backlog. Normally we don't get these requests
all that often.
> so, I would like:
> - make clear and strong requirements for new licenses (e.g.
> we should include only few licenses), or
This is roughly what I've been trying to do in my replies to the current
bugs.
> - move the choice outside policy procedure (e.g. maintainer
> of base-files).
The base-files maintainer doesn't want to be the one who decides this.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: