Bug#477428: SIL OFL should be included in common-licenses
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
> Gürkan Sengün <gurkan@phys.ethz.ch> writes:
>> Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> It's in many respects better to include the license directly in
>>> debian/copyright, since it keeps all the legal information in one
>>> place. common-licenses is primarily an optimization of archive space
>>> and disk space so that we don't include thousands of copies of
>>> licenses like the GNU GPL.
>>> Because of this, the primary criteria for inclusion in common-licenses
>>> is how widespread the license is within Debian. Usually it needs to
>>> be used in at least hundreds of packages before being considered
>>> eligible for inclusion.
>>> How many packages currently use the SIL OFL? I don't appear to have
>>> any installed on my local system.
>> I see, well, here it's only about 10 or so:
>> grep "SIL OPEN" /usr/share/doc/ttf*/copyright | wc -l
>> 12
> I think that's a strong argument for not including SIL OFL in
> common-licenses at this time.
I did a scan of the archive yesterday looking for usage of licenses that
were proposed for common-licenses, and the results for these licenses
were:
SIL OFL 1.0 12
SIL OFL 1.1 55
As mentioned above, I don't think this is enough usage to warrant
inclusion in common-licenses. I'm therefore marking this bug as rejected,
although it will remain open for a while in case anyone else disagrees and
wants to make a case for their inclusion.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: