On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 08:47:31PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Santiago Vila <sanv...@unex.es> writes: > > On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 03:21:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> Debian Policy decided, in Bug#768292, to include MPL-1.1 and MPL-2.0 in > >> common-licenses. Could you include those two files in common-licenses > >> in base-files? > > > Ok, will be done in the next upload, whenever that will be. > > Checking in on this, since there was a release on January 15 but I don't > think it included this change. (I assume at this point that it won't be > in the archive until after the release?)
Sorry, I believed we were out of time for that, but maybe I was wrong. Do you think this is ok for stretch? If yes, I can include the mpl licenses real soon now (I'd like to fix the bug about motd which was reported just a few days ago). > I'm hesitant to upload a new verison of Policy that tells people to omit > the MPL-1.1 and MPL-2.0 licenses until there's a version of base-files in > the archive that includes them. Ok, this is a deadlock :-) If you read the paragraph in base-files FAQ regarding how I delegate this to policy, it says that I'm usually reluctant to add licenses until I see policy changed. For practical purposes I think it's enough that we have already *decided* that MPL licenses should go to base-files, so please go ahead and include them in policy. No need to wait. OTOH, if you really want to see it in base-files first, I plan to upload base-files real soon (maybe this night, maybe tomorrow). Thanks a lot.
