[License-review] Submitting MPL for Approval

[John Cowan]

Karl Fogel scripsit:

> Luis, thank you!  We'll review it on this list right away.  As it
> is not too different from the previous draft seen here, I do not
> anticipate a long process (though cannot guarantee of course.)

I have reviewed it, and IMO it is obviously open-source and should be
pushed through.  No tricks, no traps.

Bruce Perens scripsit:

> Sigh. This makes it all too easy for people to make derived versions
> of the license, and thus it drives license proliferation. This is not
> grounds for rejection of the license.

+1.  However, it may become necessary to fork the license one day if
the Mozilla Foundation goes away.  Short of that, the OSI could adopt a
policy of not approving any clones of MPL2.0, which would guard against
license proliferation that actually matters, since most social beings
won't accept a license as open-source without OSI approval.

-- 
We do, doodley do, doodley do, doodley do,        John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
What we must, muddily must, muddily must, muddily must; 
Muddily do, muddily do, muddily do, muddily do,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Until we bust, bodily bust, bodily bust, bodily bust.  --Bokonon