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