Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> Licenses are included in common-licenses primarily on the basis of how >> commonly they're used in the archive. Currently, there are only about >> five packages in the archive covered by this license, so I don't >> believe this is warranted at this time. Basically, the license isn't >> common. > > GPL-3 isn't common either, yet.
I don't believe that's correct. The FSF has already converted all of their software to GPLv3, which is a substantial amount of software. The GPLv3 was indeed a special case for a variety of reasons that the Artistic License doesn't share, most notably because of the "or any later version" clause in the licenses of many GPL-covered packages. However, while I don't have time at the moment to do the half-hour grep to confirm, I expect the GPLv3 either has already or is well on its way to reaching a couple hundred packages just from the FSF relicensings. > But it is included, because it's the latest version of a license that is > quite common, and it's expected that many packages will update their > license. When that happens, let us know. It hasn't happened yet, and such mass license changes are frequently not as fast as people think that they will be. The FSF is in a unique position of leverage not shared by any organization that doesn't do copyright assignment. I wish you the best of luck, since the newer license has much clearer wording, but I think we should stick with something fairly objective, like a count of packages using the license. Around a couple hundred packages in the archive is the threshold for me personally for wanting to look at including a long license in common-licenses. > The Debian Policy Manual states that packages released under the > Artistic License should refer to the files in > /usr/share/common-licenses. I intended to comply with that policy for > the updated Parrot packages, but found I couldn't since the directory > only contained an old version of the license. The original Artistic License is called simply that, so the Policy manual can't easily refer to Artistic License version 1 or the like. The Artistic License 2.0 is a completely different license from the Artistic License. This is unfortunately confusing, but the confusion stems from the naming of the licenses. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
