This proposal (and its current title) were a bit confusingly phrased, but the essence is to request that the Artistic license be replaced by the Artistic 2.0 license in common-licenses.
There's another bug (#458385) requesting inclusion of the Artistic 2.0 license that includes more discussion of use in the archive, so that portion of this bug is a duplicate. As for removing the existing Artistic license, it's in widespread use since nearly every Perl 5 module is released under it. Removing licenses from common-licenses is sort of like removing packages from Essential; it's not something we can do without very strong justification and a lot of work. And in this case, the original Artistic license qualifies for inclusion anyway. Accordingly, I'm rejecting this proposal. If you disagree with the rejection of this proposal for reasons that weren't raised in the prior bug discussion, please raise them in this bug. If you disagree with the rejection of this proposal for reasons already raised in the bug, the path of appeal for a Policy proposal rejection is to the tech-ctte. See http://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte for how to make an appeal to the tech-ctte. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
