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

Bug#458385: marked as done (Include Artistic 2.0 in common-licenses)

Your message dated Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:37:48 -0700
with message-id <87wrstcy6b.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
and subject line Re: Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License
has caused the Debian Bug report #458385,
regarding Include Artistic 2.0 in common-licenses
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

458385: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=458385
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: base-files
Version: 4.0.1
Severity: wishlist

I'd like to request the addition of the file:


as "Artistic-2" in /usr/share/common-licenses/.


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
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 ---

Reply to: