Hello,
Am 27.04.26 um 15:22 schrieb Santiago Vila:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 03:09:54PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:On Mon, 2026-04-27 at 14:52:41 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:On Apr 27, Mechtilde Stehmann <[email protected]> wrote:The issue at hand is the inclusion of additional license texts in the base-files package.I think that there was a consensus back then and there is still one now. Do you volunteer to NMU base-files, if the maintainer is not interested in working on this?Uh, what? I'm pretty certain Santiago would be happy to update base-files *once* debian-policy has been updated, but certainly not before. So instead of unnecessarily throwing shade, perhaps get debian-policy updated first?Indeed. Here is a quote from base-files FAQ for those who never bothered to read it:
You can find the following text under https://salsa.debian.org/sanvila/base-files/-/blob/master/debian/README
Q. Why isn't license "foo" included in common-licenses? A. I delegate such decisions to the policy group. If you want to propose a new license you should make a policy proposal to modify the paragraph in policy saying "Packages distributed under the Apache license (version 2.0), the Artistic license, the GNU GPL (versions 1, 2, or 3), the GNU LGPL (versions 2, 2.1, or 3), and the GNU FDL (versions 1.2 or 1.3) should refer to the corresponding files under /usr/share/common-licenses". The way of doing this is explained in the debian-policy package. As usual, you should always take a look at already reported bugs against debian-policy before submitting a new one. If somebody has a problem with me delegating the decision to the policy group, they should say so in a clear and non ambiguous way. Thanks.
-- Mechtilde Stehmann ## Debian Developer ## PGP encryption welcome ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899 39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
