Am 13.12.2017 um 19:18 schrieb Jonathan Nieder: > Markus Koschany wrote: > >> as discussed on debian-devel [1] I would like to request that more DFSG >> licenses are added to /usr/share/common-licenses and that package >> maintainers are allowed to reference them. >> >> License: EPL-1.0 >> Source: https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html >> Example packages: >> https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Eclipse_Public_License_-_1.0 > > I'm ambivalent on this one. No strong objection but it seems likely > that small installations could benefit from not having to have this > license text. > > I'm wondering if we should split some common licenses out of > base-files to avoid this kind of dilemma. E.g. if there were some > base-files-eclipse package that provided the EPL-1.0 and we allowed > packages to depend on base-files-eclipse to avoid having to ship the > EPL in their own copyright file, then this dilemma wouldn't exist. > The hypothetical base-files-eclipse package might need to be marked in > some appropriate way to simplify following the spirit of licenses > (just like people know to treat base-files specially and distribute > the license texts from it alongside Debian source packages they > distribute). > > Thanks, > Jonathan
This license is quite common in the Java ecosystem. I think it is worth adding it because it is used by a significant number of packages codesearch.debian.net search query: EPL path:debian/copyright I would like to argue that disk space is no longer an issue in 2017 and people with special needs (embedded systems) will most likely remove /usr/share/common-licenses anyway. Thus the more DFSG-licenses we install into /usr/share/common-licenses the more time can be saved for more important issues than quoting licenses. Regards, Markus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
