Dear Maintainer,

Are there any plans to include the full text of Creative Commons licenses
beyond CC0-1.0 in the directory /usr/share/common-licenses?

I ask because I have noticed an increasing number of packages containing
files being released under one of the CC licenses. Here is the count for
one of my trixie systems:

    $ grep "^License:" CC-" /usr/share/doc/*/copyright | wc -l
    657

In addition, including the full text of these licenses in
/usr/share/common-licenses would save substantial disk space in Debian
systems. For example, the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license text in one of the
/usr/share/doc/*.copyright files on my system is over 400 lines long.

Best,

Rafael Laboissière

reassign 1122270 debian-policy
thanks

Some time ago, I decided not to decide about this sort of thing.
Instead, the procedure is to reach consensus in debian-policy first.
(See "Why isn't license "foo" included in common-licenses?" in base-files FAQ)

I'm reassigning the bug for you. It looks like there are other bugs
asking for similar things:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=795402

(but without any outcome so far).

Thanks.

* Santiago Vila <sanvila@debian.org> [2025-12-09 16:35]:

I apologize for contributing to the noise. I see that everything is
explained in the base-files' FAQ. I had overlooked this file. Before
filing the current bug report, I looked at the list of open bugs against
base-files and found no one asking for the inclusion of CC license files.
The reason is simple: previous bugs like this have been reassigned to
debian-policy.

I am wondering how we can avoid “mistakes” like mine in the future. One
solution would be to file a bug report against base-files with an
informative title, such as “base-files: NEVER ASK TO INCLUDE NEW
COPYRIGHT FILES,” tag it “wontfix,” and keep it permanently open. In the
body of the bug report, explain that the correct package for such
requests is debian-policy. This is just an idea.

Best,

Rafael

Don't worry too much about that.

I prefer to do what I did here (reassign and explain, which only
happen occasionally) than having a permanently open bug. So, I think
this is not such a big problem and there is little room for
improvement.

Thanks.

If the bugs reassigned from base-files to Policy were marked as
"affects" base-files, then they'd show up in base-files' BTS page. That
might be a good way to avoid duplicates being opened.

(This is the same mechanism used when a bug reported against an app
turns out to be really a bug in some library used by that app.)

     smcv

Hi!

You could add reportbug file to fill in the bug report template, such
as a «presubj» or a «script».

See «/usr/share/doc/reportbug/README.developers.gz» for more information.

Thanks,
Guillem

* Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> [2025-12-09 16:55]:

Good suggestion, thanks.

@sanvila: Would you mind if I issued these commands to the BTS control server?

     affects 795402 base-files
     affects 833709 base-files
     affects 883966 base-files
     affects 883968 base-files
     affects 883969 base-files
     affects 884223 base-files
     affects 884224 base-files
     affects 884225 base-files
     affects 884226 base-files
     affects 884227 base-files
     affects 884228 base-files
     affects 910548 base-files
     affects 924094 base-files
     affects 1009343 base-files
     affects 1013195 base-files
     affects 1122270 base-files
     block 1122270 by 885698

Best,

Rafael Laboissière

Well, yes, I would mind.

Those are really policy proposals which may still get approved or
rejected, and until they are approved, they do not really "affect"
base-files.

That's different from a package which FTBFS because of a bug in a -dev
package, because in those cases the build failure is typically an
objective fact.

Thanks.

I would not mind a *single* bug in debian-policy which affects base-files,
using a little bit more friendly subject, for example:

debian-policy: PLEASE REPORT BUGS ABOUT COMMON-LICENSES TO DEBIAN-POLICY

I leave the details to the policy group if they agree.

(So, the advertisement is formally done by debian-policy, it would
show in the base-files bug page, and it would be a single bug).

Thanks.

* Santiago Vila <sanvila@debian.org> [2025-12-10 09:33]:

Fair enough. The semantics of the verb “affect” may vary from person to
person. From a pragmatic point of view, the maintainer has the last say
on his/her package. ;-)

Best,

Rafael Laboissière

* Santiago Vila <sanvila@debian.org> [2025-12-10 10:42]:

I second this.

In the body of the bug report, one could include links to all bug reports
requesting the inclusion of new licenses in /usr/share/common-licenses.

Another idea would be to create a new binary package, say
common-licenses, derived from the source package debian-policy and
containing the directory /usr/share/common-licenses and its contents.
These contents would be removed from base-files. Of course, the new
hypothetical package, common-licenses, would need to have "Priority:
required" and "Essential: yes," as base-files does.

Best,

Rafael Laboissière

Or maybe just a single link using an usertag for that.
(and that way the bug does not need to be updated)

Thanks.

Hello,

I don't mind such a bug permanently existing against debian-policy if
someone would like to set it up.

That is BTS abuse in my opinion, and it should be in a reportbug script
instead as it was already suggested.

Greetings
Marc

* Marc Haber <mh+debian-packages@zugschlus.de> [2025-12-10 14:22]:

I forked the Git repository for base-files in Salsa and made the
suggested changes there [1]. However, I only later noticed that merge
requests are disabled for the sanvila/base-files repository at Salsa.

@sanvila: what is the preferred way to integrated the changes into your
repository? Should I file a bug request against base-files? What is the
preferred format for a patch? debdiff?

Best,

Rafael Laboissière

[1] https://salsa.debian.org/rafael/base-files/-/commit/860915e84b14fb3f1ad6fa77552dedb302f72821

block 1122270 by 885698