| 1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Hanno Böck wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Just for the lazy me: How many packages are we talking about? |
| 4 |
> And are these intentionally using super-obscure licenses? Or are |
| 5 |
> there ones upon them that we might be able to clear up by trying to |
| 6 |
> contact them and ask them to use a less controversial / more default |
| 7 |
> license? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
As expected, the "Artistic" license is the most popular of the three. |
| 10 |
I count 94 packages in the tree using it. This is if I don't count |
| 11 |
packages that are dual licensed "|| ( Artistic GPL-1+ )" or similar. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
"NOSA" and "Watcom-1.0" are each used by a single package only, namely |
| 14 |
sys-infiniband/libibvpp and dev-lang/jwasm, respectively. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Ulrich |
Archives