tags 291460 patch
thanks
I did a check today, and there are over 230 binary packages in the archive
with the Apache License. (I believe essentially all of them are Apache
2.0, although the simple grep I did made that a bit harder to check.)
I think that reaches the threshold for making it worthwhile to include the
license in base-files, particularly given that it's been requested several
times, although we don't really have a formal policy on how many packages
are enough packages.
Cc'ing Santiago Vila just FYI; I know you've delegated the decision to the
Policy group.
Here's a proposed patch:
--- orig/policy.sgml
+++ mod/policy.sgml
@@ -8693,21 +8693,22 @@
</p>
<p>
- Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, the Artistic
- license, the GNU GPL (version 2 or 3), the GNU LGPL (versions
- 2, 2.1, or 3), and the GNU FDL (version 1.2) should refer to
- the corresponding files under
- <file>/usr/share/common-licenses</file>,<footnote>
+ Packages distributed under the UCB BSD license, the Apache
+ license (version 2.0), the Artistic license, the GNU GPL
+ (version 2 or 3), the GNU LGPL (versions 2, 2.1, or 3), and
+ the GNU FDL (version 1.2) should refer to the corresponding
+ files under <file>/usr/share/common-licenses</file>,<footnote>
<p>
In particular,
<file>/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD</file>,
+ <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/Apache-2.0</file>,
<file>/usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic</file>,
<file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2</file>,
<file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-3</file>,
<file>/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2</file>,
<file>/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1</file>,
<file>/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-3</file>, and
- <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL-1.2</file>,
+ <file>/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL-1.2</file>
respectively.
</p>
</footnote> rather than quoting them in the copyright
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
