Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

martin f krafft writes: > All of my packages use the AL2 for packaging. Your numbers seem off. > I usually say > Released under the terms of the Artistic Licence 2.0 > and I link to > http://www.perlfoundation.org/legal/licenses/artistic-2_0.html Since this came up, while I don't want to ma

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

gregor herrmann writes: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:03:41 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Certainly if the license becomes more broadly used in the future, it >> can be proposed for inclusion again at that time. > Some clear criterion might be helpful (and save you some time in the > future :)) It's

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:03:41 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Based on that search, there are still only 20 binary packages in the > archive covered by the Artistic 2.0 license. Thanks for your research! > Given that, this license really isn't common in Debian, and hence doesn't > warrant inclusion

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Russ Allbery writes: > 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

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

also sprach gregor herrmann [2009.08.29.1423 +0200]: > 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 mig

Re: Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

While on principle I agree with Charles Plessy about the merits of including this license despite not having the "critical mass" that Debian would like, I understand the view of those in the policy team and respect their decision. For what it's worth, I've added a machine-readable-copyright-format

Re: Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Le Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 02:23:26PM +0200, gregor herrmann a écrit : > > 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 -

Re: Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

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 in

Re: Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Jonathan Yu writes: > 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 ge

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Hi everyone: 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. As we're inching closer to Per

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Hmmm... Russ and Gunnar seem to have traded positions. Whatever the policy group decides is, of course, fine. Just let us know. I'll check back in a few months if I don't hear anything more. Gunnar Wolf wrote: I'm more worried about the tons of changes this will inflict on the pkg-perl group ;

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Russ Allbery dijo [Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 05:23:17PM -0800]: > > Perl 6 is already distributed under version 2.0, currently included in > > the Parrot package. As are over a hundred Perl 6 modules, currently > > included in the Pugs package. We haven't split them out into separate > > Debian packages

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> I was under the impression that the Perl 6 modules in the archive were >> being packaged independently like the Perl 5 modules, since I think >> I've seen several of them already. I didn't realize that you had a >> monolithic pac

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Russ Allbery wrote: That's additional information that I didn't have. Are all hundred of those modules covered under the Artistic 2.0 license? Yes, with the exception of 3 explicitly mentioned in the README. I was under the impression that the Perl 6 modules in the archive were being packag

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Perl 6 is already distributed under version 2.0, currently included in > the Parrot package. As are over a hundred Perl 6 modules, currently > included in the Pugs package. We haven't split them out into separate > Debian packages yet, but will in the n

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Russ Allbery wrote: Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Many Perl modules are just licensed "under the same terms as Perl itself", so as soon as Perl is released under this license, we will have several hundreds of packages automagically under it. Of course, this will require updating/ch

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Many Perl modules are just licensed "under the same terms as Perl > itself", so as soon as Perl is released under this license, we will have > several hundreds of packages automagically under it. > Of course, this will require updating/changing many of th

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> Licenses are included in common-licenses primarily on the basis of how >> commonly they're used in the archive. Currently, there are only about >> five packages in the archive covered by this license, so I don't >> believe this i

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Russ Allbery dijo [Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:16:13AM -0800]: > >> I'd like to request the addition of the file: > >> > >> > >> > >> as "Artistic-2" in /usr/share/common-licenses/. > > Licenses are included in common-licenses primari

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Russ Allbery wrote: Licenses are included in common-licenses primarily on the basis of how commonly they're used in the archive. Currently, there are only about five packages in the archive covered by this license, so I don't believe this is warranted at this time. Basically, the license isn't

Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > reassign 458385 debian-policy > thanks > > On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, Allison Randal wrote: > >> Package: base-files >> Version: 4.0.1 >> Severity: wishlist >> >> I'd like to request the addition of the file: >> >>

Processed: Re: Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 458385 debian-policy Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License Bug reassigned from package `base-files' to `debian-policy'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug

Re: Bug#458385: New version of Artistic License

reassign 458385 debian-policy thanks On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, Allison Randal wrote: > Package: base-files > Version: 4.0.1 > Severity: wishlist > > I'd like to request the addition of the file: > > > > as "Artistic-2" in /usr/share/