--- Begin Message ---
- To: 458385-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
- From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:37:48 -0700
- Message-id: <87wrstcy6b.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
- In-reply-to: <87iq5qmtoi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> (Russ Allbery's message of "Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:03:41 -0700")
- References: <d1b732a70908281927u677bd532nd23b41689a984ca4@mail.gmail.com> <87skfb5ohi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87iq5qmtoi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
> Nearly a year later, I've now written a script to check through the
> archive for usage of various licenses. For the Artistic 2.0 license, it
> looks for:
> (?m)^License:.*Artistic-2 (DEP-5 format)
> The Artistic License 2\.0 (text found in the license)
> Based on that search, there are still only 20 binary packages in the
> archive covered by the Artistic 2.0 license.
> Given that, this license really isn't common in Debian, and hence
> doesn't warrant inclusion in common-licenses. For comparison's sake,
> the least-used license included in common-licenses (the GFDL) is used by
> 875 binary packages.
> I'm therefore marking this bug as rejected, although it will remain open
> for some time if anyone else disagrees and wants to make a case for its
> inclusion. Certainly if the license becomes more broadly used in the
> future, it can be proposed for inclusion again at that time.
And now, a month later, I'm closing this bug; the subsequent discussion
didn't raise new issues. As mentioned in one of the follow-up messages,
a useful guideline for when it would be time to include this license is
when usage approaches that of the currently least-used license family in
Debian, or around 850 binary packages, or alternatively at the point at
which this license is used by perl-base.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--- End Message ---