Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > Gürkan Sengün <gur...@phys.ethz.ch> writes: >> Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> It's in many respects better to include the license directly in >>> debian/copyright, since it keeps all the legal information in one >>> place. common-licenses is primarily an optimization of archive space >>> and disk space so that we don't include thousands of copies of >>> licenses like the GNU GPL. >>> Because of this, the primary criteria for inclusion in common-licenses >>> is how widespread the license is within Debian. Usually it needs to >>> be used in at least hundreds of packages before being considered >>> eligible for inclusion. >>> How many packages currently use the SIL OFL? I don't appear to have >>> any installed on my local system. >> I see, well, here it's only about 10 or so: >> grep "SIL OPEN" /usr/share/doc/ttf*/copyright | wc -l >> 12 > I think that's a strong argument for not including SIL OFL in > common-licenses at this time. I did a scan of the archive yesterday looking for usage of licenses that were proposed for common-licenses, and the results for these licenses were: SIL OFL 1.0 12 SIL OFL 1.1 55 As mentioned above, I don't think this is enough usage to warrant inclusion in common-licenses. I'm therefore marking this bug as rejected, although it will remain open for a while in case anyone else disagrees and wants to make a case for their inclusion. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/877hm6od93....@windlord.stanford.edu
