On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:43:21 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > I notice this has been discussed quite a bit previously (though > > something like 18 months ago), and the general idea I have gathered from > > reading is that the Artistic License, version 2.0 is not yet popular > > enough to warrant inclusion in common-licenses. > I think the general feeling was that by the time we have around 250 > packages in the archive or so that are using it, it probably warrants > inclusion, since we know that its use is going to grow in the long run. > Last time I checked, which was quite some time ago, there were *way* fewer > than that, and the surge of packages predicted in the previous thread > appears not to have happened. > > Do you have a feel for how many there are now?
As a first approach I've grepped thruugh the lintian lab: gre...@bellini:/org/lintian.debian.org/laboratory/source$ egrep "(Artistic License (Version )*2|Artistic-2)" */debfiles/copyright | cut -f1 -d/ | uniq | wc -l 19 I might have missed something but the number doesn't seem very high in any case. (Which is a pity, since I also feel that having Artistic-2 in common-licenses would be nice. Maybe later :)) Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG Key IDs: 0x00F3CFE4, 0x8649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/ `- NP: Supertramp: Child Of Vision
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
