[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: packages under the AGPL-3 license

Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org> writes:
> Am Dienstag, den 20.09.2011, 14:25 -0700 schrieb Russ Allbery:

>> I personally consider 1000 packages to be the appropriate level for
>> considering including something new in common-licenses, but I'm fairly
>> conservative on that front.  The closest (by far) of the licenses not
>> already listed there, and the best case for inclusion, is the MPL 1.1
>> at 740 packages.  The next closest contender would be the CDDL at 219
>> packages.

> Probably many people of the Mozilla extension maintainers team would
> love to see the MPL-1.1 in common-licenses.

There's oodles of discussion at:


My impression is that the consensus may be shifting, but there are various
things that make it a less appealing inclusion candidate than it might
appear at first glance, such as the fact that it's a third and (by Debian)
deprecated choice of alternative license for most packages that reference
it, the iceweasel debian/copyright file (and those packages that copied
its handling) doesn't bother to include a copy inline because of that, and
it's a disliked (albeit DFSG-free) license within Debian.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: