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

[Gervase Markham]

On 05/06/12 17:59, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> 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.

I'd add that, given that the MPL 2 is used by both Mozilla and
LibreOffice, two very substantial projects, I'd say it pretty much fits
the criteria on its own merits even without support from the large body
of MPL 1.1+ software out there.

Gerv