Bug#795402: base-files: Please add Creative Commons license texts
On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 09:15:05PM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
At least up until now, licenses haven't been added to the common
licenses list unless they are present in the archive a number of times
comparable to licenses that are already in common licenses.
There is a script in policy.git, license-count, which will help you
determine this. It needs to be run on coccia.debian.org and it would be
helpful if you could do that before filing the bug against
debian-policy, and include the results of running the script.
Thanks for the pointer. I've run it, but I had to make a minor
adjustment because it was undercounting: the DEP-5 rules are such that a
a version suffix 4.0 and 4 are equivalent. Adjusting the regexps (for CC
4.0 only. not any other licenses) results in the following. (I've added
newlines to emphasise the two CC 4.0 licenses in question)
CC-BY-SA1.0 2
CC-BY1.0 3
CC-BY2.0 4
CeCILL-B 7
CeCILL-C 10
CC-BY2.5 12
SILOFL1.0 12
CC-BY-SA2.5 15
CeCILL 28
LaTeXPPL1.3c 34
LaTeXPPL 36
CC-BY4.0 37
CC-BY-SA2.0 45
LaTeXPPL(any) 46
CDDL 58
CC-BY-SA4.0 68
GFDL(symlink) 87
BSD(common-licenses) 102
GFDL1.3 147
SILOFL1.1 166
CC-BY3.0 176
MPL2.0 189
AGPL3 208
Artistic2.0 216
MPL1.1 227
CC0-1.0 256
CC-BY-SA3.0 303
GFDL1.2 320
LGPL(symlink) 477
GFDL(any) 547
LGPL3 1123
GPL(symlink) 2587
LGPL2.1 2655
Apache2.0 2848
GPL1 3614
LGPL2 3638
Artistic 3865
LGPL(any) 4724
GPL3 5257
GPL2 9833
GPL(any) 18867
So, that's surprisingly low numbers, at least to me! I guess there'd be
resistance to adding them for this reason. Just another data point: when
I was looking at the licenses on my local system, I noticed that several
packages have the wrong license full-text in the copyright files:
they've used the human readable summaries instead of the proper text.
That's the kind of bug we could avoid if we shipped the license texts in
base-files. (I haven't exhaustively enumerated nor MBF'd these packages,
I reported just one so far against sonic-pi).
I wonder if/whether any of the CC < 4 license packages have, or could,
upgrade to CC 4, or whether the upstreams could, or have already and the
packaging hasn't caught up. More things to check...
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀
Reply to: