On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:47:52 -0600, Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava dijo [Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 09:16:17AM -0500]:
>> > 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.
> _One_ thing that makes me favor common-licenses is being able to do
> wide checks to count the number of packages saying to adhere to a
> given license -
If that is the only reason, surely there are simpler ways for
policy to allow people to do that than by making these binary packages
undistributable on their own?
I mean, off the cuff, a far simpler solution would be to add:
XS-Common-License: GPLv2
to the header, and then you do not need to unpack and look into the
copyright file to count these packages -- the Source file will give
you the information, all neatly packaged.
manoj
--
A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
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]
