Le Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 02:27:10PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : > Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > > > The other objection, though, was that, as a project, we don't really > > *like* the MPL 2.0 license. It's a rather irritating license that we'd > > rather people not use, and having it in common-licenses can be seen as a > > sort of endorsement. I'm not sure how much weight to put on that > > argument. > > It appears that I confused this license with the Netscape Public License. > Please ignore this paragraph; I don't know of anything wrong with the MPL > 2.0 other than it being complicated and long, which is just a matter of > taste. :)
Good news. Simon, would it solve your problem if the MPL-2.0 license were added to /usr/share/common-license ? (By the way, for the record, I consider that /usr/share/common-license is not a mark of endorsement anyway). Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
