* Jim Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001215 07:04]: > Perhaps one reason it's not a common license, is it's unknown whether > the license is dfsg-free. I certainly don't know; there may be others > like me:)
Does any of this really matter? I'm all for adding any old blasted license to the common-licenses package. Why not collect all the licenses in one place, to make comparisons easy? Heck, I'm all for throwing the MicroSoft EULA into common-license package. No one in their right mind would release software with it as their license, but we can include it too! (Well, probably not -- they might get upset with us about copyright issues; cf bugtraq.) Or, perhaps, more pragmatically -- if more than one package uses a license, keeping a copy in common-license would allow for saving hard drive space for those users with multiple of those packages installed -- and everyone else would lose perhaps 4k with each new license. That doesn't seem too bad. -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.''
