Bug#1135097: Bug#885698: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?
Bill Allombert <[email protected]> Fri, 1 May 2026 16:23:27 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.devel.policy |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <afS3X2WrJ8gpm4Yv__29639.4670078129$1777645533$gmane$org@seventeen> |
On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 01:53:34PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 01:43:09PM +0200, Mechtilde Stehmann wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > Am 30.04.26 um 11:35 schrieb Sean Whitton: > > > Chris Hofstaedtler [28/Apr 1:11pm +02] wrote: > > > > I haven't done a full calculation but it seems we could save 1MB in > > > > such an install just by deduplicating the copyright files. Someone > > > > else may be interested in running the same analysis on different > > > > install scenarios, say Live ISOs, Desktop installs, etc. > > > > > > > > With my src:util-linux maintainer hat on, I'd welcome tooling and a > > > > corresponding policy change towards copyright file deduplication. > > > > > > Thank you for the feedback. Seems to me we can prioritise developer > > > time by adding more licenses to common-licenses, then, with the possible > > > exception of the AGPL. > > > > This exception of the AGPL means we will only add 120 KB instead of 150 KB > > to /usr/share/common-licenses ? > > In case my opinion counts: > > I think AGPL is common enough and will still save developer time if > added to common-licenses, even if it's not present in the absolutely > minimum Debian system shown by Chris. This is a different concern that can be solved with better tooling to generate the copyright file, by automatically including the AGPL when needed. Cheers,