* Santiago Vila <[email protected]> [260501 17:05]:
> In case my opinion counts:
>
> I think AGPL is common enough and will still save developer time if
> added to common-licenses, even if it's not present in the absolutely
> minimum Debian system shown by Chris.
This is a different concern that can be solved with better tooling to
generate the copyright file, by automatically including the AGPL when needed.
However, that was never the idea of the original report, and not what I would
like to do.
Does somebody else believe that adding 30k to base-files is too much because
there are not packages in the base system using AGPL?
I *guess* it's gonna be fine.
AFAIK, "common licenses" means just that, common licenses, not "common licenses
in the base system". I believe we would still benefit from adding the AGPL.
As always people likely have different ideas how this selection
came to be and what the presence of the files mean. Maybe this
should be spelled out somewhere, if it's not already done.
Chris
