Markus Koschany wrote: > as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG > licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package > maintainers are allowed to reference them. > > License: EPL-1.0 > Source: https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html > Example packages: > https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Eclipse_Public_License_-_1.0
I'm ambivalent on this one. No strong objection but it seems likely that small installations could benefit from not having to have this license text. I'm wondering if we should split some common licenses out of base-files to avoid this kind of dilemma. E.g. if there were some base-files-eclipse package that provided the EPL-1.0 and we allowed packages to depend on base-files-eclipse to avoid having to ship the EPL in their own copyright file, then this dilemma wouldn't exist. The hypothetical base-files-eclipse package might need to be marked in some appropriate way to simplify following the spirit of licenses (just like people know to treat base-files specially and distribute the license texts from it alongside Debian source packages they distribute). Thanks, Jonathan > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/12/msg00209.html
