Le Fri, May 01, 2026 at 05:05:12PM +0200, Santiago Vila a écrit :
AFAIK, "common licenses" means just that, common licenses, not "common licenses in the base system". I believe we would still benefit from adding the AGPL.
Hi all, yes, please add the AGPL-3 and the other licenses suggested by Mechtilde to the common licenses. For reference, I just ran license-count on coccia after applying the attached patch. Here is the output. By the way, it runs takes only a few seconds and not 30 minutes as indicated in the source code comments. AGPL 3 313 Apache 2.0 7087 Artistic 4270 Artistic 2.0 365 BSD (common-licenses) 3 BSL-1.0 302 CC-BY 1.0 3 CC-BY 2.0 16 CC-BY 2.5 11 CC-BY 3.0 256 CC-BY 4.0 249 CC-BY-SA 1.0 9 CC-BY-SA 2.0 46 CC-BY-SA 2.5 19 CC-BY-SA 3.0 461 CC-BY-SA 4.0 352 CC0-1.0 1544 CDDL 66 CeCILL 33 CeCILL-B 16 CeCILL-C 11 GFDL (any) 588 GFDL (symlink) 53 GFDL 1.2 285 GFDL 1.3 254 GPL (any) 20356 GPL (symlink) 947 GPL 1 4168 GPL 2 10658 GPL 3 7321 LGPL (any) 5310 LGPL (symlink) 192 LGPL 2 4093 LGPL 2.1 3184 LGPL 3 1771 LaTeX PPL 52 LaTeX PPL (any) 42 LaTeX PPL 1.3a 1 LaTeX PPL 1.3c 34 MPL 1.1 178 MPL 2.0 502 SIL OFL 1.0 10 SIL OFL 1.1 309 The AGPL-3 and Artistic-2.0 are among the licenses promoted as 'standard' for R packages (together with GPL-2 GPL-3 LGPL-2 LGPL-2.1 LGPL-3 BSD_2_clause BSD_3_clause and MIT), which I handle a lot recently. https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-exts.html#Licensing And while I aggree to the opinions expressed here that there seems to be no objections raised directly by users of systems under space constraints, please note that adding CC-BY-SA-3.0 will not increase the size of systems using GRUB, and that CC-BY-SA-4.0 licenses are found on systems that use nftables. https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2026/01/msg00010.html It is not uncommon that I find these four license when I have to write new debian/copyright files for r-cran-* and r-bioc-* packages, or when their upstreams relicense their work. I would deeply appreciate if they could be added to the common licenses. By the way, for the point of view of saving the time of writing, reading and scrolling to maintainers and reviewers of new packages, maybe the DFSG, Licensing and New packages team could run license-count regulary and see which licenses are trending up? Being proactive would have the highest impact. Have a week-end, Charles -- Charles Plessy Nagahama, Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan Debian Med packaging team http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tooting from work, https://fediscience.org/@charles_plessy Tooting from home, https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy
>From 054d97e95eccc9791b43b56b123662f0bde994d2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Charles Plessy <[email protected]> Date: Sat, 2 May 2026 10:55:55 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] Add BSL-1.0 and correct comment about run time. --- tools/license-count | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/tools/license-count b/tools/license-count index 63520bb..c511ae2 100755 --- a/tools/license-count +++ b/tools/license-count @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ # # license-count /srv/ftp-master.debian.org/export/changelogs # -# It will take about a half-hour to run. +# It will take about less than a minute to run. use File::Find qw(find); @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ our @RULES = ( [qr,(?m)^License:.*AGPL-3, => 'AGPL 3'], [qr,(?m)^License:.*Artistic(?!-), => 'Artistic'], [qr,(?m)^License:.*Artistic-2, => 'Artistic 2.0'], + [qr,(?m)^License:.*BSL-1.0, => 'BSL-1.0'], [qr,(?m)^License:.*CC-BY-1, => 'CC-BY 1.0'], [qr,(?m)^License:.*CC-BY-SA-1, => 'CC-BY-SA 1.0'], [qr,(?m)^License:.*CC-BY-2, => 'CC-BY 2.0'], -- 2.51.0
