martin f krafft madd...@debian.org writes:
All of my packages use the AL2 for packaging. Your numbers seem off.
I usually say
Released under the terms of the Artistic Licence 2.0
and I link to
http://www.perlfoundation.org/legal/licenses/artistic-2_0.html
Since this came up, while I
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
I think the general feeling was that by the time we have around 250
packages in the archive or so that are using it, it probably warrants
inclusion, since we know that its use is going to grow in the long run.
Last time I checked, which was quite some time
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:03:41 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Based on that search, there are still only 20 binary packages in the
archive covered by the Artistic 2.0 license.
Thanks for your research!
Given that, this license really isn't common in Debian, and hence doesn't
warrant inclusion in
gregor herrmann gre...@debian.org writes:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:03:41 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Certainly if the license becomes more broadly used in the future, it
can be proposed for inclusion again at that time.
Some clear criterion might be helpful (and save you some time in the
also sprach gregor herrmann gre...@debian.org [2009.08.29.1423 +0200]:
As a first approach I've grepped thruugh the lintian lab:
gre...@bellini:/org/lintian.debian.org/laboratory/source$ egrep (Artistic
License (Version )*2|Artistic-2) */debfiles/copyright | cut -f1 -d/ | uniq |
wc -l
19
Le Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 02:23:26PM +0200, gregor herrmann a écrit :
As a first approach I've grepped thruugh the lintian lab:
gre...@bellini:/org/lintian.debian.org/laboratory/source$ egrep (Artistic
License (Version )*2|Artistic-2) */debfiles/copyright | cut -f1 -d/ | uniq |
wc -l
19
While on principle I agree with Charles Plessy about the merits of
including this license despite not having the critical mass that
Debian would like, I understand the view of those in the policy team
and respect their decision.
For what it's worth, I've added a
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:43:21 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I notice this has been discussed quite a bit previously (though
something like 18 months ago), and the general idea I have gathered from
reading is that the Artistic License, version 2.0 is not yet popular
enough to warrant inclusion
Hi everyone:
I notice this has been discussed quite a bit previously (though
something like 18 months ago), and the general idea I have gathered
from reading is that the Artistic License, version 2.0 is not yet
popular enough to warrant inclusion in common-licenses.
As we're inching closer to
Jonathan Yu jonathan.i...@gmail.com writes:
I notice this has been discussed quite a bit previously (though
something like 18 months ago), and the general idea I have gathered from
reading is that the Artistic License, version 2.0 is not yet popular
enough to warrant inclusion in
Hmmm... Russ and Gunnar seem to have traded positions. Whatever the
policy group decides is, of course, fine. Just let us know. I'll check
back in a few months if I don't hear anything more.
Gunnar Wolf wrote:
I'm more worried about the tons of changes this will inflict on the
pkg-perl group
Russ Allbery wrote:
That's additional information that I didn't have. Are all hundred of
those modules covered under the Artistic 2.0 license?
Yes, with the exception of 3 explicitly mentioned in the README.
I was under the impression that the Perl 6 modules in the archive were
being
Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
I was under the impression that the Perl 6 modules in the archive were
being packaged independently like the Perl 5 modules, since I think
I've seen several of them already. I didn't realize that you had a
monolithic package that
Russ Allbery dijo [Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 05:23:17PM -0800]:
Perl 6 is already distributed under version 2.0, currently included in
the Parrot package. As are over a hundred Perl 6 modules, currently
included in the Pugs package. We haven't split them out into separate
Debian packages yet,
Russ Allbery wrote:
Licenses are included in common-licenses primarily on the basis of how
commonly they're used in the archive. Currently, there are only about
five packages in the archive covered by this license, so I don't believe
this is warranted at this time. Basically, the license
Russ Allbery dijo [Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:16:13AM -0800]:
I'd like to request the addition of the file:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/attachment/legal/artistic-2_0.txt
as Artistic-2 in /usr/share/common-licenses/.
Licenses are included in common-licenses primarily on the basis of
Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
Licenses are included in common-licenses primarily on the basis of how
commonly they're used in the archive. Currently, there are only about
five packages in the archive covered by this license, so I don't
believe this is
Gunnar Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Many Perl modules are just licensed under the same terms as Perl
itself, so as soon as Perl is released under this license, we will have
several hundreds of packages automagically under it.
Of course, this will require updating/changing many of them (as
Russ Allbery wrote:
Gunnar Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Many Perl modules are just licensed under the same terms as Perl
itself, so as soon as Perl is released under this license, we will have
several hundreds of packages automagically under it.
Of course, this will require
Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perl 6 is already distributed under version 2.0, currently included in
the Parrot package. As are over a hundred Perl 6 modules, currently
included in the Pugs package. We haven't split them out into separate
Debian packages yet, but will in the next 6
reassign 458385 debian-policy
thanks
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, Allison Randal wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 4.0.1
Severity: wishlist
I'd like to request the addition of the file:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/attachment/legal/artistic-2_0.txt
as Artistic-2 in
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
reassign 458385 debian-policy
thanks
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, Allison Randal wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 4.0.1
Severity: wishlist
I'd like to request the addition of the file:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/attachment/legal/artistic-2_0.txt
Package: base-files
Version: 4.0.1
Severity: wishlist
I'd like to request the addition of the file:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/attachment/legal/artistic-2_0.txt
as Artistic-2 in /usr/share/common-licenses/.
Thanks,
Allison
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
23 matches
Mail list logo
