Re: packages under the AGPL-3 license

2011-09-20 Thread Russ Allbery
Benjamin Drung writes: > Am Dienstag, den 20.09.2011, 14:25 -0700 schrieb Russ Allbery: >> I personally consider 1000 packages to be the appropriate level for >> considering including something new in common-licenses, but I'm fairly >> conservative on that front. The closest (by far) of the lice

Re: packages under the AGPL-3 license

2011-09-20 Thread Russ Allbery
Stefano Zacchiroli writes: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 02:25:49PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Actually, based on the surveys I've done of licensing information, I >> think it's unlikely that the AGPL will ever become that popular of a >> license. I doubt it will even pass the GFDL, which we prob

Re: packages under the AGPL-3 license

2011-09-20 Thread Benjamin Drung
Am Dienstag, den 20.09.2011, 14:25 -0700 schrieb Russ Allbery: > I personally consider 1000 packages to be the appropriate level for > considering including something new in common-licenses, but I'm fairly > conservative on that front. The closest (by far) of the licenses not > already listed ther

Re: packages under the AGPL-3 license

2011-09-20 Thread Russ Allbery
Stefano Zacchiroli writes: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 01:28:26AM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: >> I am working on packaging the LIO tools [1]. The userspace component is >> licensed under AGPL-3. >> As per Debian bug #621462, the license is not part of common-licenses >> because there aren't ma

packages under the AGPL-3 license

2011-09-20 Thread Ritesh Raj Sarraf
Hello Fellow Devs, I am working on packaging the LIO tools [1]. The userspace component is licensed under AGPL-3. As per Debian bug #621462, the license is not part of common-licenses because there aren't many consumers for it, yet. I plan to document the license in the debian/copyright file and