Re: epl-v2.0 as acceptable license

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Ryo ONODERA <ryo%tetera.org@localhost> writes:

> pkg_install does not accept epl-v2.0 (Eclipse Public License Version 2.0)
> by default.
> Is there any reason not to include epl-v2.0 in default_acceptable_licenses?
>
> If there is no special reason, I would like add it
> to default_acceptable_licenses.
>
>
> epl-v2.0 is accepted by OSI.
> https://opensource.org/license/epl-2-0
>
> And FSF accepts epl-v2.0 like epl-v1.0.
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#EPL2

doctrine as documented in license.mk is that approval by any of OSI,
FSF, DFSG/debian is sufficient, and if so then

  license can exist without a -license suffix
  it can be in DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE

(except for AGPL, which is unquestionably Free and Open Source and does
not have a -license suffix, but is not in DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE, per
board@, also documented).

Given what you said, I'd say it's a bug/oversight that epl-v2.0 is not
in whatever list pkg_install is using.