packages under the AGPL-3 license
Hello Fellow Devs, I am working on packaging the LIO tools [1]. The userspace component is licensed under AGPL-3. As per Debian bug #621462, the license is not part of common-licenses because there aren't many consumers for it, yet. I plan to document the license in the debian/copyright file and proceed. lintian reports error, E: python-configshell: copyright-should-refer-to-common-license-file-for-gpl, for which I've filed a bug report. PS: Please CC me in replies. [1] http://linux-iscsi.org/wiki/Main_Page -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs Debian - The Universal Operating System signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: packages under the AGPL-3 license
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org writes: On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 01:28:26AM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: I am working on packaging the LIO tools [1]. The userspace component is licensed under AGPL-3. As per Debian bug #621462, the license is not part of common-licenses because there aren't many consumers for it, yet. The data referenced by that buglog are 15 months old. Although I doubt they've changed enough to overtake the minimum threshold, it would be nice to re-evaluate them. For one thing, the growth rate might give insights about the future market share of the license. TBH, AGPL is likely to become a popular license. Having maintainers include it verbatim in packages nowadays, to factor it out a few years from now, doesn't seem like a useful exercise... Actually, based on the surveys I've done of licensing information, I think it's unlikely that the AGPL will ever become that popular of a license. I doubt it will even pass the GFDL, which we probably should not have accepted into common-licenses. Due to a combination of a limitation of the Lintian lab format and the file system on lintian.d.o, the Lintian lab is not currently complete, but I can get partial information. I updated the license check script in the Policy tools directory and ran it against the current Lintian lab. It shows 31 packages in the archive covered by the AGPL version 3, which is of course far, far too few to even be thinking about common-licenses at this point. Here's the complete statistics for the licenses that the tools script knows how to search for. The restriction to 31,998 packages is because we've hit the link count maximum for an ext3 directory. I personally consider 1000 packages to be the appropriate level for considering including something new in common-licenses, but I'm fairly conservative on that front. The closest (by far) of the licenses not already listed there, and the best case for inclusion, is the MPL 1.1 at 740 packages. The next closest contender would be the CDDL at 219 packages. AGPL 3 31 Apache 2.0 1474 Artistic 2776 Artistic 2.0 50 BSD (common-licenses) 569 CC-BY 3.068 CC-BY-SA 3.0133 CDDL219 CeCILL 20 CeCILL-B 11 CeCILL-C 20 GFDL (any) 939 GFDL (symlink) 395 GFDL 1.2550 GFDL 1.3 79 GPL (any) 21496 GPL (symlink) 8326 GPL 1 2159 GPL 2 10821 GPL 3 3785 LGPL (any) 7977 LGPL (symlink) 2134 LGPL 2 5689 LGPL 2.1 4084 LGPL 3 947 LaTeX PPL 181 LaTeX PPL (any) 131 LaTeX PPL 1.3c 120 MPL 1.1 740 SIL OFL 1.0 16 SIL OFL 1.1 88 Total number of packages: 31998 -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87sjnq29eq@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: packages under the AGPL-3 license
Am Dienstag, den 20.09.2011, 14:25 -0700 schrieb Russ Allbery: I personally consider 1000 packages to be the appropriate level for considering including something new in common-licenses, but I'm fairly conservative on that front. The closest (by far) of the licenses not already listed there, and the best case for inclusion, is the MPL 1.1 at 740 packages. The next closest contender would be the CDDL at 219 packages. Probably many people of the Mozilla extension maintainers team would love to see the MPL-1.1 in common-licenses. -- Benjamin Drung Debian Ubuntu Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: packages under the AGPL-3 license
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org writes: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 02:25:49PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Actually, based on the surveys I've done of licensing information, I think it's unlikely that the AGPL will ever become that popular of a license. I doubt it will even pass the GFDL, which we probably should not have accepted into common-licenses. Thanks for this prompt feedback. ... and gosh, I didn't imagine AGPL share was so low in the Debian archive. (Countering bad gut feelings is what data are useful for!) Yes, indeed. :) I supported adding the GFDL 1.3 to common-licenses on the basis of a similar gut feeling, and it's still sitting there at only 79 packages. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87boue28ry@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: packages under the AGPL-3 license
Benjamin Drung bdr...@debian.org writes: Am Dienstag, den 20.09.2011, 14:25 -0700 schrieb Russ Allbery: I personally consider 1000 packages to be the appropriate level for considering including something new in common-licenses, but I'm fairly conservative on that front. The closest (by far) of the licenses not already listed there, and the best case for inclusion, is the MPL 1.1 at 740 packages. The next closest contender would be the CDDL at 219 packages. Probably many people of the Mozilla extension maintainers team would love to see the MPL-1.1 in common-licenses. There's oodles of discussion at: http://bugs.debian.org/487201 My impression is that the consensus may be shifting, but there are various things that make it a less appealing inclusion candidate than it might appear at first glance, such as the fact that it's a third and (by Debian) deprecated choice of alternative license for most packages that reference it, the iceweasel debian/copyright file (and those packages that copied its handling) doesn't bother to include a copy inline because of that, and it's a disliked (albeit DFSG-free) license within Debian. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/877h5228lj@windlord.stanford.edu
