On 30.04.08 Hilmar Preusse ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On 20.04.08 Frank Küster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi *; > > We could ask whether the lppl can be included in > > /usr/share/common-licenses. > > > ACK! Is it enough to file a wishlist bug against base-files? I'd > request to include all available versions of LPPL there. > No. /usr/share/doc/base-files/FAQ: Q. Why isn't license "foo" included in common-licenses? A. I delegate such decisions to the policy group. If you want to propose a new license you should make a policy proposal to modify the paragraph in policy saying "Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, Artistic license, GNU GPL and GNU LGPL should refer to the files in /usr/share/common-licenses". The way of doing this is explained in the debian-policy package. As usual, you should always take a look at already reported bugs against debian-policy before submitting a new one. The bug has to go to debian-policy. Anybody having a clue how many packages we have under the LPPL in Debian now? [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ $ apt-cache search --names-only texlive|wc -l 93 That makes at least 100 given there are a lot of other package under the LPPL. H. -- sigmentation fault -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
