[License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing pages

Mike Milinkovich mike.milinkovich at eclipse.org
Tue Jun 5 16:59:34 UTC 2012

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?] 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120605/fb5d2d5d/attachment.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list