On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:51:24 -0600, Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Of course, I'm playing with the numbers. There are still smaller
> machines, there are the embedded-minded people, and of course, there
> would be no sane way to verify the GPL3 was the same GPL3 all over if
> we were to kill common-licenses - But basically, I'd not base the
> definition in diskspace savings.
Then you had better come up with a rationale for having a common
licences directory at all. Seems to me that making binary packages
unusable on their own (can't legally distribute without a copyright
file; so they can only be distributed _with_ the rest of Debian) is a
big enough obstacle that unless we have a compelling reason to have a
common licenses directory, we should not strip out the licenses from
packages and replace them with a pointer.
The rationale traditionally has been (to quote Russ)
> Mainly that repeating the uncompressed text of the GPL in every
> package licensed under the GPL actually ends up taking a rather
> measurable amount of space and is something of a waste. And since
> it's legal information, it's much more difficult to justify stripping
> it even in embedded configurations where that space really hurts.
manoj
--
You know, the difference between this company and the Titanic is that
the Titanic had paying customers.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
