Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#487201: MPL-license"):
> By pure numbers, that's not a sufficient number of packages to warrant
> inclusion in common-licenses according to the criteria previously
> discussed here. (I think it falls short by hundreds.)
I don't think pure numbers is the only thing we should be considering
here. The costs either way in bandwidth and diskspace are modest.
But having a licence in common-licences acts as if it were a kind of
approval - even if we don't intend it that way. So we should only put
licences there that we actually like.
I would suggest that the MPL is not a licence that we like and want to
lend encouragement and visibility.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
