Hello, On ketvirtadienis 10 Birželis 2010 22:55:20 Russ Allbery wrote: > Yesterday, I did a survey of all licenses in Debian, which among other > things attempted to locate all uses of this license by either its title > (case-insensitive and whitespace-insensitive) or via the DEP-5 format. > The result was 52 binary packages in the archive using CC-BY 3.0 and 79 > binary packages in the archive using CC-BY-SA 3.0. > > While we don't have any strict criteria for inclusion in common-licenses, > this is well shy of the least-used license already present (the GFDL, at > 875 binary packages). I don't believe either of these licenses used > nearly frequently enough to warrant inclusion in common-licenses. > > I'm marking this bug as rejected accordingly, although it will stay open > for a while in case anyone disagrees and wants to make a case for its > inclusion. Well, I have to agree with your results of the survey because I didn't do one. Indeed, apparently those licenses are not that popular. On the other hand, 130+ packages is not such a small number so those licenses are still "common" just to a lesser extent. I tend not to view "common" as "very popular" but rather "shared by multiple things". So I wonder what are the disadvantages of including them in common-licenses? What would Debian lose by doing so? They are supposedly DFSG free, more than a hundred of packages share it so copyright files of 130+ binary packages may potentially become smaller and easier to understand. -- Modestas Vainius <modestas@vainius.eu>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.