On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 12:13:25PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Dec 08 2017, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > > > diff --git a/policy/ch-docs.rst b/policy/ch-docs.rst index > > dc02bc6..1de221f 100644 --- a/policy/ch-docs.rst +++ > > b/policy/ch-docs.rst @@ -208,11 +208,12 @@ important because > > ``copyright`` files must be extractable by mechanical > > means. > > > > Packages distributed under the Apache license (version 2.0), the > > -Artistic license, the GNU GPL (versions 1, 2, or 3), the GNU LGPL > > -(versions 2, 2.1, or 3), the GNU FDL (versions 1.2 or 1.3), and the > > -Mozilla Public License (version 1.1 or 2.0) should refer to the > > -corresponding files under ``/usr/share/common-licenses``, [#]_ rather > > -than quoting them in the copyright file. +Artistic license, the > > Creative Commons CC0-1.0 license, the GNU GPL +(versions 1, 2, or 3), > > the GNU LGPL (versions 2, 2.1, or 3), the GNU FDL +(versions 1.2 or > > 1.3), and the Mozilla Public License (version 1.1 or +2.0) should > > refer to the corresponding files under > > +``/usr/share/common-licenses``, [#]_ rather than quoting them in the > > +copyright file. > > > > You should not use the copyright file as a general ``README`` > > file. If your package has such a file it should be installed in > > @@ -341,6 +342,7 @@ please see :ref:`s-dpkgchangelog`. > > .. [#] > > In particular, ``/usr/share/common-licenses/Apache-2.0``, > > ``/usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic``, > > + ``/usr/share/common-licenses/CC0-1.0``, > > ``/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-1``, > > ``/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2``, > > ``/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-3``, > > Seconded.
So, what is the percentage of packages under this license ? This has always been the criterium used to put it in common-licenses. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
