Package: base-files Version: 7.1 Severity: wishlist Currently, /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic holds the license identified with the SPDX registered identifier "Artistic-1.0". http://spdx.org/licenses/
There are also 2 other Artistic licenses around: * "Artistic-2.0" (SPDX registered) * "Clarified Artistic License" by Bradley Kuhn Since all other files for licenses use SPDX registered name as the file name while keeping symlinks for old license ID names, I think it is good idea to follow this convention. Otherwise, it will be misleading and confusing once PERL6 becomes more popular. When you do this, there is 2 ways for making the symlink for Artistic: * Add Artistic-2.0 file and point Artistic to there like other cases. * Point Artistic to Artistic-1.0. I do not have answer which way should be done. I leave this call to others. (Maintainer? Debian legal?) I think this change should be coordinated with wiki page and policy text: http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_Artistic_License http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile === Side note === It was a bit confusing for me. Here is my summary: * "Artistic-1.0" Perl5 (not approved by the FSF) http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_1_0 * "Artistic-2.0" Perl6 (approved by the FSF) http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_2_0 * Bradley Kuhn's "Clarified Artistic License" (approved by the FSF) http://gianluca.dellavedova.org/2011/01/03/clarified-artistic-license/ The most authoritative background information seems to be here: http://www.theperlreview.com/Interviews/allison-randal-artistic-license.html Wikipedia article is also the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_License The Debian wiki page was a bit confusing since its URL link for "Clarified Artistic License" only point to Artistic-2.0. http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_Artistic_License | The Artistic License | | http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php | | Perl is licensed under the Artistic License. | | Do note that the Artistic License is considered non-free by the FSF. | They suggest to use the Clarified Artistic License (also called Artistic | License 2.0) instead. However, the original Artistic License is still | considered DFSG-free. This should be more like: | Do note that the Artistic License 1.0 is considered non-free by the FSF. | They suggest to use the Bradley Kuhn's Clarified Artistic License or | Artistic License 2.0 instead. However, the original Artistic License | is still considered DFSG-free. While making URL references for all licenses. Regards, Osamu PS: I cced Charles since he maintain Debian wiki page mentioned above.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
