On 16.05.08 Bas Wijnen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 03:19:55PM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
Hi, > Not every acceptable license needs to be in policy. In fact none of > them do. The only place in policy where licenses are mentioned, is > about /usr/share/common-licenses. You mean it should be in there? > Exactly. Then I read the FAQ of the package, which said a license must be mentioned in the policy to get there. Hence I filed a bug against debian-policy. > > Actually the # of packages under this license is rather medium: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ $ apt-cache search --names-only texlive|wc -l > > 93 > > > > which should make > 100, as there are a lot of other packages beside > > TeX Live under this license. > > If this is a good idea depends not only on the number of packages. > We had some discussion about a good metric for deciding this, but > didn't come to a conclusion. > > However, this doesn't sound like it qualifies IMO. The reason is > that while TeX Live consists of a lot of packages, there are many > installations where none of them are installed. Putting them in > /usr/share/common-licenses means it is also installed on embedded system > which are really short on storage (and which will certainly not install > any TeX packages). > In the moment we have the situation that we are requested to add the license to all TL packages, instead of just adding it to one and put only referers into the others (#473216). This gives us 1.8 MB of license files, which could be saved of the LPPL would be in base-files. Further the TeX Live packages are often build depends for other packages and could be smaller if the license would be at a central place instead of every single package. Thanks, Hilmar -- sigmentation fault -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
