On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Engel Nyst <engel.n...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello license-discuss, > > Thank you for the work and patience on this. IMHO the new page looks > more useful than it used to be. > > Cosmetic point: two of the licenses have explicit version, while the > others don't. Is this intended?
Somewhat intended: the unversioned licenses have either (1) only one version in wide use (e.g., CDDL) or (2) multiple versions in very wide use (e.g., GPL). MPL and Apache have older versions that the authors have requested we deprecate, and that in practice are less widely used because But you're right that we could think about clarifying that. > A little off, another cosmetic point: I cannot find Mozilla Public > License 1.1 linked anywhere, except the page with MPL 1.0 text. Am I > missing it, or is this intended? Even if it is superceded by 2.0, I > would have expected it listed. It's barely superceded, after all, and > I suppose projects may use it. It is in the by-category list, but not the alphabetical list, it looks like. Karl, thoughts on how best to remedy that? Thanks, Engel! Luis _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
