Benjamin Drung <bdr...@debian.org> writes:
> Am Dienstag, den 20.09.2011, 14:25 -0700 schrieb Russ Allbery:
>> I personally consider 1000 packages to be the appropriate level for
>> considering including something new in common-licenses, but I'm fairly
>> conservative on that front. The closest (by far) of the licenses not
>> already listed there, and the best case for inclusion, is the MPL 1.1
>> at 740 packages. The next closest contender would be the CDDL at 219
>> packages.
> Probably many people of the Mozilla extension maintainers team would
> love to see the MPL-1.1 in common-licenses.
There's oodles of discussion at:
http://bugs.debian.org/487201
My impression is that the consensus may be shifting, but there are various
things that make it a less appealing inclusion candidate than it might
appear at first glance, such as the fact that it's a third and (by Debian)
deprecated choice of alternative license for most packages that reference
it, the iceweasel debian/copyright file (and those packages that copied
its handling) doesn't bother to include a copy inline because of that, and
it's a disliked (albeit DFSG-free) license within Debian.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/877h5228lj....@windlord.stanford.edu
