Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I recently did a survey of both licenses already listed in
> common-licenses and ones proposed for common-licenses using a Perl
> script that's now in the debian-policy Git repository. The result was
> that the MPL version 1.1 was used by 654 binary packages in the archive.
> This is by far the best claim of any of the proposed new licenses for
> common-licenses, although it still falls short of the least-used license
> already in common-licenses (the GFDL, used by 875 binary packages in
> some variant or version) and certainly well short of the 5% of the
> archive standard that Manoj proposed (which would be 1473 binary
> So I'm torn on this one, and the discussion also seemed divided. I'm
> leaning mildly towards rejecting it, but only very mildly.
> Other opinions?
All of the reaction so far has been ambivalent or somewhat opposed, and no
one seems to be interested in arguing strongly for adding the MPL to
common-licenses, so I'm going to go ahead and tag this bug rejected.
However, I'll leave it open in case this action and resurrection of the
thread leads someone to decide to argue for it. :)
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>