effe iets anders wrote:
And as I said already quite a while before, that is mostly a case for license-experts, copyright-experts, the foundation and their willingness to face a potential sue, and maybe as well the free software foundtaion, the writer of the GNU Free Documentation License.
The fact is that there has been no corpus of case law built up relating to free licences of any kind. These experts are guessing just as much as anybody else. Risk tolerance, and the willingness for the Foundation to face a law suit is important, but so too is the recognition that there are numerous steps between where we are now, and a full-blown lawsuit, and these usually include many opportunities to withdraw.
I would suggest to have a more structured and broad discussion, ..., where the discussion could be split into different topics, and the arguments can be collected in a way that one can keep oversight.
Yes, but that demands an awful lot of focus and concentration from people. ;-)
Because who exactly is benefitting from this very discussion? We have very great texts here, but the problem is that probably only a small group reads this (due to the amount of text) and those in this group already took a stand, and wont be persuaded anymore. It makes little sense that way :) Please let someone set up a structured discussion on meta, so it will be easier to follow, and it will less be making people to quit foundation-l due to the amount of messages in their inbox (not everybody has gmail). I myself would prefer first _*at least*_ a guideline of the foundation, stating what the boundaries are within which we can move.
I don't know about meta; I very seldom go there anymore. Some of us are more accustomed to going through the mailing lists than watching a number of separate pages on meta., though I admit that it could be easier to keep the discussion a little more organized there.
Ec