Package: base-files Version: 3.1.14 Followup-For: Bug #381729 The Debian Free Software Guidelines (part of the Social Contract) clause 10 defines the Artistic License as free for the purposes of Debian. Because the Social Contract and the DFSG were written in the mid 1990s, it obviously refers to the version of the Artistic license used back then. I thought anyone with a debian.org e-mail address had been trained and tested in knowing the Social Contract...
Much more importantly, the licenses in usr/share/common-licenses are NOT there to be a catalog of currently approved free licenses. They are there so hundreds of other packages can omit shipping those specific license texts in their /usr/share/doc/<package>/ dir. To make this scheme legally correct, a file in /usr/share/common-licenses should not be changed as long as any other packages refer to that file in their /usr/share/doc/<package>/copyright or elsewhere. So even if a need occurs to add Artistic-2.0 or GPL-3.0, the files that hold the previous versions of those licenses should not be changed or removed anytime soon. I suggest that this bug is closed with a tag indicating rejection (so readers of the BTS don't thing this change was made). -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /basnxt/bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.17jbj3.4-16 Locale: LANG=en_DK.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_DK.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Versions of packages base-files depends on: ii base-passwd 3.5.11 Debian base system master password ii mawk [awk] 1.3.3-11 a pattern scanning and text proces base-files recommends no packages. -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
