Thomas Koch <tho...@koch.ro> writes: > Could you please include the CDDL license in the common licenses? > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php
> As to my knowledge there are already a couple of packages with this > license in the archive: > openoffice, gfarm, kfreebsd-7 Yesterday, I did a survey of licenses used in Debian to, in part, determine how many packages used the CDDL, detected by looking for key parts of that license. The result of that survey was 190 binary packages in Debian using that license. While we don't have a specific criteria for inclusion of new licenses in common-licenses, it's something that we default to not doing because of the advantages of keeping the licensing material with the installed package. It's generally only appropriate for licenses that are very widely used and which would otherwise be duplicated on a significant scale throughout the archive or on users' systems. The least-used license already included in common-licenses is the GFDL, used by 875 binary packages. Given that the usage of the CDDL is less than fourth of that and less than 1% of the archive, I don't believe that it warrants inclusion in common-licenses at this time. I'm therefore marking this bug as rejected, although it will remain open for a while in case anyone disagrees and wants to make a case for its inclusion. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
