Le Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 08:21:58AM +0900, Mike Hommey a écrit : > > Note the iceweasel copyright file uses that stanza for both MPL-1.1 and > MPL-2.0, and is still about 100K long. Even if MPL-2.0 ends up in the > common set of licenses, that would still leave the MPL-1.1 being a > problem, while, in fact, it's barely relevant: all the code under the > MPL-1.1 is either dual or tri-licensed with LGPL-2.1 as an alternative. > > So, I would still hate to have to put the verbatim MPL-1.1 text in the > iceweasel copyright file.
Hi Mike and everybody, here is the current license count that I just calculated on the lintian lab (lilburn.debian.org) using tools/licence-count from the Policy's Git repository. AGPL 3 292 Apache 2.0 4764 Artistic 3818 Artistic 2.0 201 BSD (common-licenses) 349 CC-BY 3.0 309 CC-BY-SA 3.0 883 CDDL 504 CeCILL 54 CeCILL-B 50 CeCILL-C 33 GFDL (any) 2181 GFDL (symlink) 541 GFDL 1.2 1088 GFDL 1.3 617 GPL (any) 41017 GPL (symlink) 7765 GPL 1 3659 GPL 2 25825 GPL 3 11428 LGPL (any) 18377 LGPL (symlink) 2480 LGPL 2 14714 LGPL 2.1 10441 LGPL 3 2644 LaTeX PPL 76 LaTeX PPL (any) 197 LaTeX PPL 1.3c 184 MPL 1.1 1146 MPL 2.0 853 SIL OFL 1.0 13 SIL OFL 1.1 567 Total number of packages: 73267 How about adding both MPLs to /usr/share/common-licenses ? Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141109100811.gb13...@falafel.plessy.net
