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.
This is just minimalistic, pragmatic, and common sensical list maintenance. [I'll add something now about MPL 2.0: It was submitted for approval in early December of last year and approved within a few months, as it should have been; it is a good license. Yet it appears already on the list of OSI-approved licenses" as "popular, widely used, or have strong communities." Is it because there are defenders of the MPL 2.0 on the OSI board? Is that honest, fair, unbiased and legitimate?]
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
