On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 20:32:21 -0400 Richard wrote: > The negation makes this harder to understand (for people not > accustomed to set theory and complex grammar), so we should not > make this change.
as i remember, this was proposed because people expressed a confusion of its intention - it is presuming that the forge recommends _any_ license at all - people thought that it implied that the forge must recommend the GPL - the re-wording was supposed to be a clarification, such as: "... IFF the forge recommends any license ..." the proposed B1.9 requires good licensing documentation - even if that is accepted though, this criteria is at the 'C' level, yet is essentially taking for granted that B1.9 is satisfied
