Bug#885698: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?

[Mechtilde Stehmann]

hello

Am 27.04.26 um 10:08 schrieb Chris Hofstaedtler:

* Mechtilde Stehmann <mechti...@debian.org> [260427 10:02]:

As a member of the new DFSG team, I would like to restart the discussion
from September 2023..

The issue at hand is the inclusion of additional license texts in the
base-files package.

In doing so, I would like to continue Russ Albery’s proposal [0].

Great. Let me state some IMO relevant questions:

1) What was the outcome of the 2023 discussion?

They agreed to include more licenses in /usr/share/common-licenses. No objections were raised.

2) If nothing has changed, why?

But nothing was changed.

I guess because nobody want to do the work. This is my personal opinion

3) What is the current dataset?

Artistic-2.0
AGPL-3
BSL-1.0 
CC-BY-3.0
CC-BY-4.0
CC-BY-SA-3.0
CC-BY-SA-4.0
OFL-1.1

The Artistic License in /usr/share/common-licenses is version 1.0

At a first task I think theses licenses should be added. They fullfill the criteria Russ posted and at my local machine.

Best,
Chris

Regards
--
Mechtilde Stehmann
## Debian Developer
## PGP encryption welcome
## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899  39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F

OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature