Am 13.12.2017 um 19:40 schrieb Jonathan Nieder: > Hi, > > Markus Koschany wrote: >> Am 13.12.2017 um 19:10 schrieb Jonathan Nieder: >>> Markus Koschany wrote: > >>>> License: AGPL-3.0 >>>> Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.de.html >>>> Example packages: >>>> https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#GNU_AFFERO_GENERAL_PUBLIC_LICENSE_.28AGPL-3.29 >>> >>> What commonly installed packages use this license? Is ghostscript the >>> only one, or are there others? >> >> Actually my idea was not to distinguish between "commonly installed" >> packages and simply "used in packages" anymore. Maintainers will roughly >> save the same amount of time by not copying this license. > > This seems odd to me. Wouldn't copying upstream's LICENSE file > verbatim be the action that involves the least amount of time? I have > always assumed common-licenses is about disk space and transfer time > savings, not maintainer time savings.
[...] No, this is entirely about our most precious resources: time and human beings You also have to format the license in such a way that it complies with copyright format 1.0. For instance that means you have to put dots on every empty line. You can make a simple experiment: Take a stopwatch, find a plain-text version of this license on the internet, format the file according to copyright format 1.0 and stop the time. Then stop the time how long it takes to write this: License: [AGPL-3+]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
