Re: Bug#885698: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

Mechtilde Stehmann <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.debian.devel.general
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hello,


Am 27.04.26 um 15:22 schrieb Santiago Vila:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 03:09:54PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> On Mon, 2026-04-27 at 14:52:41 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>>> On Apr 27, Mechtilde Stehmann <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> The issue at hand is the inclusion of additional license texts in the
>>>> base-files package.
>>
>>> I think that there was a consensus back then and there is still one now.
>>> Do you volunteer to NMU base-files, if the maintainer is not
>>> interested in working on this?
>>
>> Uh, what? I'm pretty certain Santiago would be happy to update
>> base-files *once* debian-policy has been updated, but certainly not
>> before. So instead of unnecessarily throwing shade, perhaps get
>> debian-policy updated first?
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Here is a quote from base-files FAQ for those who never bothered to read it:


You can find the following text under

https://salsa.debian.org/sanvila/base-files/-/blob/master/debian/README
> Q. Why isn't license "foo" included in common-licenses?
> 
> A. I delegate such decisions to the policy group. If you want to
> propose a new license you should make a policy proposal to modify the
> paragraph in policy saying "Packages distributed under the Apache
> license (version 2.0), the Artistic license, the GNU GPL (versions 1,
> 2, or 3), the GNU LGPL (versions 2, 2.1, or 3), and the GNU FDL
> (versions 1.2 or 1.3) should refer to the corresponding files under
> /usr/share/common-licenses". The way of doing this is explained in the
> debian-policy package. As usual, you should always take a look at
> already reported bugs against debian-policy before submitting a new
> one.
> 
> 
> If somebody has a problem with me delegating the decision to the
> policy group, they should say so in a clear and non ambiguous way.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

-- 
Mechtilde Stehmann
## Debian Developer
## PGP encryption welcome
## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899  39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
OpenPGP_signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=FrL3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.