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

Bug#578522: marked as done (Include CDDL license in common-licenses)

Your message dated Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:43:35 -0700
with message-id <87aappcxwo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
and subject line Re: Bug#578522: base-files: please include CDDL license text
has caused the Debian Bug report #578522,
regarding Include CDDL license 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
immediately.)


-- 
578522: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=578522
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: base-files
Version: 5.3
Severity: wishlist

Could you please include the CDDL license in the common licenses?
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php

As to my knowledge there are already a couple of packages with this
license in the archive:
openoffice, gfarm, kfreebsd-7

-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (700, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-4-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages base-files depends on:
ii  gawk [awk]                1:3.1.7.dfsg-5 GNU awk, a pattern scanning and pr
ii  mawk [awk]                1.3.3-15       a pattern scanning and text proces

base-files recommends no packages.

base-files suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:

> Yesterday, I did a survey of licenses used in Debian to, in part,
> determine how many packages used the CDDL, detected by looking for key
> parts of that license.  The result of that survey was 190 binary
> packages in Debian using that license.

> While we don't have a specific criteria for inclusion of new licenses in
> common-licenses, it's something that we default to not doing because of
> the advantages of keeping the licensing material with the installed
> package.  It's generally only appropriate for licenses that are very
> widely used and which would otherwise be duplicated on a significant
> scale throughout the archive or on users' systems.

> The least-used license already included in common-licenses is the GFDL,
> used by 875 binary packages.  Given that the usage of the CDDL is less
> than fourth of that and less than 1% of the archive, I don't believe
> that it warrants inclusion in common-licenses at this time.

> I'm therefore marking this bug as rejected, although it will remain open
> for a while in case anyone disagrees and wants to make a case for its
> inclusion.

There has been no subsequent discussion, so I'm closing this bug now.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

--- End Message ---
Reply to: