Hilmar Preusse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
More relevantly than the total size, IMO (1.8MB isn't really very much) is that according to popcon, one-seventh of our systems have at least texlive-base installed. If every texlive-base installation would benefit from having LPPL in common-licenses and most installations involve more than one package with the LPPL, that looks like a fairly reasonable case for common-licenses to me. It's not as strong of a case as the Apache 2.0 license had (nearly half of our popcon-reporting systems have at least apache2.2-common installed), but one-seventh is still a lot of systems. Manoj's suggested guide was 5% of the binary packages; that's probably a higher bar, and I'm not sure if TL meets that one; that would be about 4000 binary packages using the license, and we added the Apache license based on only about 250. I wonder if something like 10% of popcon-reporting systems having at least two packages using that license installed would be a better metric. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
