Gervase Markham wrote: I'd add that, given that the MPL 2 is used by both Mozilla and LibreOffice, two very substantial projects, I'd say it pretty much fits the criteria on its own merits even without support from the large body of MPL 1.1+ software out there.
I fully agree with the general opinion here that MPL 2 is an important and widely-used license. I meant no disrespect to that or any other licenses when complaining about the list of "popular" licenses on the OSI website. However, what are the "criteria" to which you refer so that we can judge other licenses by the same criteria? /Larry -----Original Message----- From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv-gm...@gerv.net] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 8:06 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing pages On 05/06/12 17:59, Mike Milinkovich wrote: > I don't think that the inclusion of MPL 2.0 in any way a bad decision. > My assumption is that the Steward of the MPL requested that all > significant references to the the MPL be modified to point to the new > version. Similarly, the original list included both the CPL and the EPL. > When the CPL was deprecated in favour of the EPL, the CPL was deleted > from the list. I'd add that, given that the MPL 2 is used by both Mozilla and LibreOffice, two very substantial projects, I'd say it pretty much fits the criteria on its own merits even without support from the large body of MPL 1.1+ software out there. Gerv _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list <mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org> License-discuss@opensource.org <http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
