Bug#487201: MPL-license

[Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>]

Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#487201: MPL-license"):
> By pure numbers, that's not a sufficient number of packages to warrant
> inclusion in common-licenses according to the criteria previously
> discussed here.  (I think it falls short by hundreds.)

I don't think pure numbers is the only thing we should be considering
here.  The costs either way in bandwidth and diskspace are modest.

But having a licence in common-licences acts as if it were a kind of
approval - even if we don't intend it that way.  So we should only put
licences there that we actually like.

I would suggest that the MPL is not a licence that we like and want to
lend encouragement and visibility.

Ian.