Your message dated Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:42:34 -0700
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#565884: Please include CeCILL* licenses in
common-licenses
has caused the Debian Bug report #565884,
regarding Please include CeCILL* licenses in common-licenses
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
565884: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=565884
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: base-files
Version: 5.0.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
there is a growing body of packages (or at least files) under [1]CeCILL license
in the archive. The CeCILL licenses are wordy and the project would benefit
from having them in /usr/share/common-licenses.
[1] http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html
Best regards, Thibaut.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.31-1-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages base-files depends on:
ii base-passwd 3.5.22 Debian base system master password
ii gawk [awk] 1:3.1.6.dfsg-4 GNU awk, a pattern scanning and pr
ii mawk [awk] 1.3.3-15 a pattern scanning and text proces
base-files recommends no packages.
base-files suggests no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Russ Allbery <[email protected]> writes:
> As revealed in subsequent discussion when this bug was originally filed,
> the number of packages using CeCILL licenses is fairly small (under 20
> at the last survey), and there are multiple different forms of the
> license, so each license is used only a handful of times.
> While we've never set a firm numeric limit for license consideration in
> common-licenses, the general feeling is that it should be at least a
> couple of hundred, so this seems to be well short.
> I'm accordingly marking this Policy bug as rejected. It will remain
> open for some time in case anyone has any objections or disagrees with
> this analysis.
There has been no subsequent discussion, so I'm closing this bug now.
--
Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--- End Message ---
