[License-review] Submitting MPL for Approval
cowan at mercury.ccil.org
Fri Dec 9 04:44:30 UTC 2011
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
More information about the License-review