Arch Linux

If I remember correcly, licenses are not added to the common package unless there's at least two packages that use them in [core] or [extra]. I asked the same question for the Open Font License, some time ago.

The wiki states that "Once a license is used in two or more packages in an official repo, including [community], it becomes common".[1]
Both zope and zope-interface are in [extra] and are licensed under the ZPL (albeit the license arrays are missing in both PKGBUILDs).
So it's a sufficient condition to add it to the common licenses.^^

[1] http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Licenses

@bardo: I know at least ttf-libertine is under GPL+addition and OFL, though it's not in Extra (yet?).

ehm, the question is: is ZPL the same type of license like BSD/MIT/etc.? (it wasn't clear to me when reading the license text)
- they require packager to provide license text with the package itself, and thus are not included in licenses package.

If the original filer of this bug could answer the above questions by Roman, it would be appreciated.

If not, I want to close this bug for inactivity.

I'm neither a lawyer nor a native speaker, so I also cannot state for certain whether it is right or wrong to pack a copy of the license into every package or use only one file to reference to.
But what I know is that none of the packages I maintain which are licensed under ZPL actually come with a copy of the license...
The only reference to the actual content of the license is at the beginning of apparently every source file. I've attached a copy of these "headers".
That one states that "A copy of the ZPL should accompany this distribution", but a stated above, the package tarballs don't contain an actual copy of the license, and neither does the compiled and installed package (I've verified it with makepkg and the 'docs' option).

So if the project teams don't care about including a complete license, I don't think we (AKA the package maintainers) need to include a copy of the license for every separate package.

Also the license itself doesn't have any variable parts, like e.g. the BSD license where you always have to include the names of the actual copyright holders.

That is as far as my knowledge goes.

OK, then I think it would be fine to add it to common licenses, if there are no objections, Dan.

Added in licenses 2.3-1. Can the original filer open a new bug against the packages that now need to reference this license?