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

Mechtilde Stehmann <[email protected]> Mon, 27 Apr 2026 11:01:28 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.policy
Message-ID	<a1bc59a6-4e34-47a2-a0b4-a4a97b14fe73__29674.7899426677$1777280606$gmane$org@debian.org>

hello

Am 27.04.26 um 10:08 schrieb Chris Hofstaedtler:
> * Mechtilde Stehmann <[email protected]> [260427 10:02]:
>> As a member of the new DFSG team, I would like to restart the discussion
>> from September 2023..
>>
>> The issue at hand is the inclusion of additional license texts in the
>> base-files package.
>>
>> In doing so, I would like to continue Russ Albery’s proposal [0].
> 
> Great. Let me state some IMO relevant questions:
> 
> 1) What was the outcome of the 2023 discussion?

They agreed to include more licenses in /usr/share/common-licenses. No 
objections were raised.

> 2) If nothing has changed, why?

But nothing was changed.

I guess because nobody want to do the work. This is my personal opinion

> 3) What is the current dataset?

At a first task I think theses licenses should be added. They fullfill 
the criteria Russ posted and at my local machine.

Artistic-2.0
AGPL-3
BSL-1.0	
CC-BY-3.0
CC-BY-4.0
CC-BY-SA-3.0
CC-BY-SA-4.0
OFL-1.1

The Artistic License in /usr/share/common-licenses is version 1.0
> 
> Best,
> Chris
> 

Regards
-- 
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)