[Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week

[Ray Saintonge]

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