Santiago Vila <[email protected]> writes: > On Sun, 3 Apr 2011, Christian Perrier wrote:
>> The Open Font License is quite universally considered as meeting the >> DFSG. Indeed, several font packages in Debian main provide fonts >> distributed under that license. >> Having the full text of OFL distributed in /usr/share/common-licenses >> would avoid including the text of the license in these packages. > According to base-files FAQ, I do not decide about this. The debian > policy group does. Hence the reassign. Hi Christian, I did a scan of the archive last year (in June), and the result was relatively few uses of the SIL Open Font License: SIL OFL 1.0 12 SIL OFL 1.1 55 so a total of 67 usages of the family. For comparison, the smallest number of usages of a family of licenses of those in common-licenses is the GFDL, at 875. At the time, we therefore decided that this was some distance away from being widely used enough to put in common-licenses, given the various drawbacks of that (adding a level of indirection for people reviewing licenses and so on). Do you think this may have changed in the subsequent nine months? I can run my survey script again. If you're curious, here's the complete results of my scan from last June: Apache 2.0 1119 Artistic 2285 Artistic 2.0 30 BSD (common-licenses) 1556 CC-BY 3.0 52 CC-BY-SA 3.0 79 CDDL 190 CeCILL 12 CeCILL-B 7 CeCILL-C 20 GFDL (any) 875 GFDL (symlink) 389 GFDL 1.2 499 GFDL 1.3 67 GPL (any) 19893 GPL (symlink) 10116 GPL 1 1540 GPL 2 9073 GPL 3 2797 LGPL (any) 7183 LGPL (symlink) 2524 LGPL 2 4679 LGPL 2.1 3189 LGPL 3 691 LaTeX PPL 1.3c 297 MPL 1.1 654 SIL OFL 1.0 12 SIL OFL 1.1 55 Total number of packages: 29470 -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
