Hello there. Is there a similar discussion list as this one, but global?
My particular interest is to talk about a draft of a new license I want to propose (similar to the AGPL, in the sense that has only small variations, but important ones for the niche I'm thinking of).
Thanks,
"Andres G. Aragoneses" aaragoneses@novell.com writes:
Hello there. Is there a similar discussion list as this one, but global?
That would make sense only if the specific jurisdictions affecting software freedom were global. Despite the ongoing efforts of the “intellectual property” cabal to “harmonise” jurisdictions world-wide on their vision of property, that remains not the case.
My particular interest is to talk about a draft of a new license I want to propose (similar to the AGPL, in the sense that has only small variations, but important ones for the niche I'm thinking of).
Since the issues of a copyright license need to be discussed in terms of specific copyright jurisdictions, it seems best to bring it up in each one.
First, though, is the question of license proliferation. It's widely recognised to be a bad idea to make new licenses for free software, instead of choosing existing ones that have been examined over many years and are known to be relatively trouble-free.
Hello Ben, thanks for your answer. See inline:
Ben Finney wrote:
"Andres G. Aragoneses" aaragoneses@novell.com writes:
Hello there. Is there a similar discussion list as this one, but global?
That would make sense only if the specific jurisdictions affecting software freedom were global. Despite the ongoing efforts of the “intellectual property” cabal to “harmonise” jurisdictions world-wide on their vision of property, that remains not the case.
Good point.
However in my case I'm wondering if it makes more sense to first bring up the concepts of the license at a global level, and then later discuss details about jurisdictions differences. It's not difficult to understand, because it just requires some alterations to the current GPL license (I will provider a sort of a "diff").
My particular interest is to talk about a draft of a new license I want to propose (similar to the AGPL, in the sense that has only small variations, but important ones for the niche I'm thinking of).
Since the issues of a copyright license need to be discussed in terms of specific copyright jurisdictions, it seems best to bring it up in each one.
First, though, is the question of license proliferation. It's widely recognised to be a bad idea to make new licenses for free software, instead of choosing existing ones that have been examined over many years and are known to be relatively trouble-free.
I'm aware of the license proliferation problem, and mainly that's the reason why I'm here pushing this instead of encouraging some companies that I'm in contact with to create licenses on their own. I think it makes more sense for them to embrace a common license, and much better if it's blessed by the FSF, instead of each one adopting a very similar one.
"Andrés G. Aragoneses" aaragoneses@novell.com writes:
I think it makes more sense for them to embrace a common license, and much better if it's blessed by the FSF, instead of each one adopting a very similar one.
Well, I'm not going to tell anyone not to discuss or ask questions. But I think your chances of getting a new license “blessed by the FSF” are vanishingly small.
These companies that want license terms already had the opportunity to get a blessed-by-the-FSF license: the GPLv3, which was the result of unprecedented input and discussion from the entire software community. I would expect you will have better results encouraging companies to use those well-understood license terms.
Ben Finney wrote:
"Andrés G. Aragoneses" aaragoneses@novell.com writes:
I think it makes more sense for them to embrace a common license, and much better if it's blessed by the FSF, instead of each one adopting a very similar one.
Well, I'm not going to tell anyone not to discuss or ask questions. But I think your chances of getting a new license “blessed by the FSF” are vanishingly small.
These companies that want license terms already had the opportunity to get a blessed-by-the-FSF license: the GPLv3, which was the result of unprecedented input and discussion from the entire software community. I would expect you will have better results encouraging companies to use those well-understood license terms.
If I'm pushing the creation of a new license, it's logical to think that I've already examined the needs of these companies, and the existing licenses don't fit in their corresponding distribution scenarios, even if they're really desiring to switch and start using open source licenses.
(And IMO if the FSF was so close minded to not examine these special cases, licenses such as the AGPL or LGPL would have never been created.)
So, should I start in this mailing-list the discussion and elaborate on the motivations of why this new license is needed and why the existing licenses do not fit with this model? Or should I contact other FSF staff via other means? Any FSF member reading?
Thanks.
--
Andrés G. Aragoneses Software Engineer aaragoneses@novell.com
Novell, Inc. http://www.novell.com/ Software for the open enterprise
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 09:54:06PM -0500, "Andrés G. Aragoneses" wrote:
So, should I start in this mailing-list the discussion and elaborate on the motivations of why this new license is needed and why the existing licenses do not fit with this model? Or should I contact other FSF staff via other means? Any FSF member reading?
I'm an associate member, and I know some staffers. Does that count? ;)
My advice to you would be to email licensing@fsf.org and see what they think.
You might also want to contact the OSI about this.
Noah Slater wrote:
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 09:54:06PM -0500, "Andrés G. Aragoneses" wrote:
So, should I start in this mailing-list the discussion and elaborate on the motivations of why this new license is needed and why the existing licenses do not fit with this model? Or should I contact other FSF staff via other means? Any FSF member reading?
I'm an associate member, and I know some staffers. Does that count? ;)
Perfect, I invite you to participate on the discussion, as I posted the ideas in a new thread (following advice from Stefano and Alessandro). Could you also tell the staffers you know to post their opinions?
My advice to you would be to email licensing@fsf.org and see what they think.
Well, I think I already contacted them via this email, but I was replied by only one person (which turns out to belong to one of the "reluctant" groups I talk about in the new thread) and I think this needs to be discussed in a global way like a mailing list.
You might also want to contact the OSI about this.
As far as I understand, OSI is more oriented to less-restrictive open source licenses, right? Then I guess they wouldn't be very interested.
Thanks.
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 05:31:17PM -0400, "Andrés G. Aragoneses" wrote:
Noah Slater wrote:
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 09:54:06PM -0500, "Andrés G. Aragoneses" wrote:
So, should I start in this mailing-list the discussion and elaborate on the motivations of why this new license is needed and why the existing licenses do not fit with this model? Or should I contact other FSF staff via other means? Any FSF member reading?
I'm an associate member, and I know some staffers. Does that count? ;)
Perfect, I invite you to participate on the discussion, as I posted the ideas in a new thread (following advice from Stefano and Alessandro). Could you also tell the staffers you know to post their opinions?
Well, the staffers I know are already on this list. Hey Matt!
My advice to you would be to email licensing@fsf.org and see what they think.
Well, I think I already contacted them via this email, but I was replied by only one person (which turns out to belong to one of the "reluctant" groups I talk about in the new thread) and I think this needs to be discussed in a global way like a mailing list.
Hmm, it is going to involve some diplomacy with them if you want it accepted.
As far as I understand, OSI is more oriented to less-restrictive open source licenses, right? Then I guess they wouldn't be very interested.
Likewise, you will want OSI approval if you want mindshare for your licence.
Am Sonntag, 8. März 2009 22:31:17 schrieb Andrés G. Aragoneses:
You might also want to contact the OSI about this.
As far as I understand, OSI is more oriented to less-restrictive open source licenses, right?
No, by definition OSI is interested in all Free Software licenses (which they call "open source") - this includes the licenses with strong freedom protection like GNU GPLv3.
You might also want to contact the OSI about this.
As far as I understand, OSI is more oriented to less-restrictive open source licenses, right?
No, by definition OSI is interested in all Free Software licenses (which they call "open source") - this includes the licenses with strong freedom protection like GNU GPLv3.
They are also interested in non-free licenses as well, e.g. the NASA public license.
Am Montag, dem 09. M�r 2009 schrieb Alfred M. Szmidt:
You might also want to contact the OSI about this.
As far as I understand, OSI is more oriented to less-restrictive open source licenses, right?
No, by definition OSI is interested in all Free Software licenses (which they call "open source") - this includes the licenses with strong freedom protection like GNU GPLv3.
They are also interested in non-free licenses as well, e.g. the NASA public license.
Stop spreading FUD! It is true that this license was accepted by the OSI but rejectet by the FSF. But it just was a rather minor problem why it was rejected by the FSF.
It is true that this license was accepted by the OSI but rejectet by the FSF. But it just was a rather minor problem why it was rejected by the FSF.
Right, that small problem being that it was a non-free license.
* list wrote, On 09/03/09 11:14:
Am Montag, dem 09. M�r 2009 schrieb Alfred M. Szmidt:
You might also want to contact the OSI about this.
As far as I understand, OSI is more oriented to less-restrictive open source licenses, right?
No, by definition OSI is interested in all Free Software licenses (which they call "open source") - this includes the licenses with strong freedom protection like GNU GPLv3.
They are also interested in non-free licenses as well, e.g. the NASA public license.
Stop spreading FUD! It is true that this license was accepted by the OSI but rejectet by the FSF. But it just was a rather minor problem why it was rejected by the FSF.
I'm puzzled - you say it is FUD; but then you seem to agree with him.
How is it FUD?
Sam
2009/3/9 Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com:
I'm puzzled - you say it is FUD; but then you seem to agree with him. How is it FUD?
The implication is that the OSI is not interested in software freedom because it disagrees with the FSF on one corner-case. This is historically and factually inaccurate.
- d.
I'm puzzled - you say it is FUD; but then you seem to agree with him. How is it FUD?
The implication is that the OSI is not interested in software freedom because it disagrees with the FSF on one corner-case. This is historically and factually inaccurate.
This "corner case" is clear cut, the NASA Open Source agreement requires any contribution to be "original", one cannot take bits and bobs from another project and incopreate it into a NASA Open Source licensed project.
This is clearly a non-free license, since it violates freedom 3, "the freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.".
The OSI disagrees with this freedom, and have decided to list a license that is not a free software license amongst its approved licenses.
I fail to see what is historically inaccureate, or factually incorrect. The OSI has listed, and lists licenses that do not adher to the four freedoms of software, the only conclusion is that they do not care about software freedom.
2009/3/9 Alfred M. Szmidt ams@gnu.org:
The OSI disagrees with this freedom, and have decided to list a license that is not a free software license amongst its approved licenses. I fail to see what is historically inaccureate, or factually incorrect. The OSI has listed, and lists licenses that do not adher to the four freedoms of software, the only conclusion is that they do not care about software freedom.
Similarly, the Debian Free Software Guidelines disallow the GFDL. The FSF continues to advocate the GFDL. Therefore the FSF does not care about software freedom.
The fallacy in both cases is going beyond "black and white thinking" to using special definitions of the words "black" and "white".
The FSF and OSI have different set-out goals, but that does not mean the FSF owns specific English-language terms.
- d.
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 12:41:11PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
Similarly, the Debian Free Software Guidelines disallow the GFDL. The FSF continues to advocate the GFDL. Therefore the FSF does not care about software freedom.
The FSF invented the concept.
The fallacy in both cases is going beyond "black and white thinking" to using special definitions of the words "black" and "white".
The FSF and OSI have different set-out goals, but that does not mean the FSF owns specific English-language terms.
Unfortunately, where I would normally agree here, the FSF's definition of software freedom is the canonical one. Debian has it's DFSG, which is fine. The OSI has it's own too, which is great. But it is perfectly reasonable for someone with an FSF hat on to disagree that this is free software.
cf. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
2009/3/9 Noah Slater nslater@tumbolia.org:
Unfortunately, where I would normally agree here, the FSF's definition of software freedom is the canonical one. Debian has it's DFSG, which is fine. The OSI has it's own too, which is great. But it is perfectly reasonable for someone with an FSF hat on to disagree that this is free software.
Oh yes, advocacy is perfectly understandable. However, confusing a strongly held opinion with an objective fact is muddled thinking, e.g. GNU/Linux versus Linux - the former is an opinion that FSF advocates like to state as a fact, the latter is what the rest of the world calls it in English.
(I started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy and helped get it to Wikipedia featured status.)
- d.
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 12:54:09PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
(I started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy and helped get it to Wikipedia featured status.)
What's your nick on Wikipedia.
I have previously been involved in the arguments with Chris Cunningham about his endless drive to remove all references to GNU/Linux from Wikipedia. I had presumed that he had made this page as well. Such muddled thinking exists on both sides it seems. I gave up in the end.
2009/3/9 Noah Slater nslater@tumbolia.org:
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 12:54:09PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
(I started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy and helped get it to Wikipedia featured status.)
What's your nick on Wikipedia.
User:David Gerard , oddly enough ;-)
I have previously been involved in the arguments with Chris Cunningham about his endless drive to remove all references to GNU/Linux from Wikipedia. I had presumed that he had made this page as well. Such muddled thinking exists on both sides it seems. I gave up in the end.
There's a thing called the "history" tab which is useful in this context. I separated it out from the main [[Linux]] article (which was an utter mess) in 2004.
There are partisans on all sides. However, the good ones know how to edit neutrally *anyway*. Presuming that anyone who does anything of benefit to a side other than yours is proceeding from malice ... is a fundamental error. That's where the Wikipedia maxim "assume good faith" comes from. You can think of it instead as "assume stupidity rather than malice" if you like ;-)
- d.
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 03:47:09PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
There's a thing called the "history" tab which is useful in this context. I separated it out from the main [[Linux]] article (which was an utter mess) in 2004.
That's a very patronising tone to take.
Looking through the history of Linux back to 2004 would take a long time.
There are partisans on all sides. However, the good ones know how to edit neutrally *anyway*. Presuming that anyone who does anything of benefit to a side other than yours is proceeding from malice ... is a fundamental error. That's where the Wikipedia maxim "assume good faith" comes from. You can think of it instead as "assume stupidity rather than malice" if you like ;-)
My implication was that Chris Cunningham had made a persistent effort to irradiate various words or viewpoints that he personally disagrees with. Many people have tried to fight back and restore neutrality, but his rate of edits is almost impossible to keep up with. I am offended that you implied I consider his actions to be malice because I do not agree with his opinion.
Anyway, this is wildly off-topic.
2009/3/9 Noah Slater nslater@tumbolia.org:
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 03:47:09PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
There's a thing called the "history" tab which is useful in this context. I separated it out from the main [[Linux]] article (which was an utter mess) in 2004.
That's a very patronising tone to take. Looking through the history of Linux back to 2004 would take a long time.
*cough* however, going back to the beginning of the history of [[GNU/Linux naming controversy]] is a single click on the "earliest" link.
- d.
Am Montag, dem 09. Mar 2009 schrieb David Gerard:
2009/3/9 Noah Slater nslater@tumbolia.org:
Unfortunately, where I would normally agree here, the FSF's definition of software freedom is the canonical one. Debian has it's DFSG, which is fine. The OSI has it's own too, which is great. But it is perfectly reasonable for someone with an FSF hat on to disagree that this is free software.
Oh yes, advocacy is perfectly understandable. However, confusing a strongly held opinion with an objective fact is muddled thinking, e.g. GNU/Linux versus Linux - the former is an opinion that FSF advocates like to state as a fact, the latter is what the rest of the world calls it in English.
(I started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy and helped get it to Wikipedia featured status.)
Let's stop bickering. The best article about the naming controversy ist still this one: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Richard_M_Stallman_Vs._Linus_Torvalds ;-)
2009/3/9 list@akfoerster.de:
Let's stop bickering. The best article about the naming controversy ist still this one: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Richard_M_Stallman_Vs._Linus_Torvalds ;-)
The honourable gentleman is of course entirely correct.
- d.
The FSF has never claimed that the GFDL is a free software license.
You are correct that the OSI and the FSF have different goals, they also have different criterias. The NASA Open Agreement fails the criterias for free software. And the accepted definition of free software is the one set by the FSF, and has been in use for more than 20 years now. It is also the definition used by FSF Europe, and the rest of the free software community. In the end, the OSI also includes lciensesicenses that are deemed non-free software, since they have criterias that are not as strong as the free software ones.
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 08:37 -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
I'm puzzled - you say it is FUD; but then you seem to agree with him. How is it FUD?
The implication is that the OSI is not interested in software freedom because it disagrees with the FSF on one corner-case. This is historically and factually inaccurate.
This "corner case" is clear cut, the NASA Open Source agreement requires any contribution to be "original", one cannot take bits and bobs from another project and incopreate it into a NASA Open Source licensed project.
The GNU GPL also prevents some free software to be used.
This is clearly a non-free license, since it violates freedom 3, "the freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.".
No, while I tend to agree with the FSF views, this is clearly just political agenda. The NASA license is *bad* but it is clearly *free software*, you have all the freedoms you have with the GPL, it's just that the compatibility list is an empty set.
The OSI disagrees with this freedom, and have decided to list a license that is not a free software license amongst its approved licenses.
No the OSI has been realistic this time. The OSI was wrong in accepting the original Apple License for example, but the NASA license is just stupid, but yet a free software license.
If I were OSI I wouldn't have approved it on political grounds (it's useless as it creates a niche of free software that cannot be shared with other projects), but certainly not under the definition of free software.
I fail to see what is historically inaccureate, or factually incorrect. The OSI has listed, and lists licenses that do not adher to the four freedoms of software, the only conclusion is that they do not care about software freedom.
You are just being unreasonably zealot, but that's as usual.
It's a pity that people have to keep doing damage control every time you write in public tho...
Simo.
I'm puzzled - you say it is FUD; but then you seem to agree with him. How is it FUD?
The implication is that the OSI is not interested in software freedom because it disagrees with the FSF on one corner-case. This is historically and factually inaccurate.
This "corner case" is clear cut, the NASA Open Source agreement requires any contribution to be "original", one cannot take bits and bobs from another project and incopreate it into a NASA Open Source licensed project.
The GNU GPL also prevents some free software to be used.
Use is out of the scope of the GPL, see section 0 of the GPLv2.
No the OSI has been realistic this time. The OSI was wrong in accepting the original Apple License for example, but the NASA license is just stupid, but yet a free software license.
Clearly, it isn't, since it is declared a non-free software license.
You are just being unreasonably zealot, but that's as usual.
Please move such gibberish elsewhere.
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 11:21 -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
I'm puzzled - you say it is FUD; but then you seem to agree with him. How is it FUD?
The implication is that the OSI is not interested in software freedom because it disagrees with the FSF on one corner-case. This is historically and factually inaccurate.
This "corner case" is clear cut, the NASA Open Source agreement requires any contribution to be "original", one cannot take bits and bobs from another project and incopreate it into a NASA Open Source licensed project.
The GNU GPL also prevents some free software to be used.
Use is out of the scope of the GPL, see section 0 of the GPLv2.
Thanks for the attempt to use straw men attacks.
But you know *very* well what I meant.
The GNU GPL does not allow you to mix in code from some other *free software* licenses as well.
If that was a criteria to judge the freedom of some software the GNU GPL would be non-free as well. Clearly the GPL is free software, therefore the simple fact that a license is not compatible with other free software licenses is not a valid criterium to establish if a license is free or not.
No the OSI has been realistic this time. The OSI was wrong in accepting the original Apple License for example, but the NASA license is just stupid, but yet a free software license.
Clearly, it isn't, since it is declared a non-free software license.
Clearly ? Please show a reasoning that does not make the GNU GPL non-free as well.
You are just being unreasonably zealot, but that's as usual.
Please move such gibberish elsewhere.
Sure, while we have to put up with yours ? ...
Simo.
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/9 Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com:
I'm puzzled - you say it is FUD; but then you seem to agree with him. How is it FUD?
The implication is that the OSI is not interested in software freedom because it disagrees with the FSF on one corner-case. This is historically and factually inaccurate.
Arguing about implications - in other words, arguing against things that no-one has written and one has imagined. That won't end well.
It's not just one corner-case: NASA, Reciprocal, Apple, Netscape... probably others. What does this mean?
OSI was the Open Source Initiative, an initiative to secure a trademark on "Open Source", to market free software. The initiative failed, the trademark is unobtainable and OSI should have dissolved instead of setting itself up as a bad advocacy-led mix of FSF and debian licence review processes.
Two other things:-
FSF never claimed FDL is a FS licence. I think it's wrong to have manuals which aren't FS, but we disagree on what software is. I also think it's wrong to give obnoxious ad clause support to legacy publishers, but FSF needs its manuals published.
Debian uses the DFSG as *guidelines* (the G), as practical checks of whether *software* (the S) meets the free software definition. Some debian developers are unhappy about OSI using a minimally-modified version the DFSG as a definition for licences instead of guidelines for software.
Hope that explains,
Am Montag, dem 09. M�r 2009 schrieb Sam Liddicott:
- list wrote, On 09/03/09 11:14:
Am Montag, dem 09. M�r 2009 schrieb Alfred M. Szmidt:
They are also interested in non-free licenses as well, e.g. the NASA public license.
Stop spreading FUD! It is true that this license was accepted by the OSI but rejectet by the FSF. But it just was a rather minor problem why it was rejected by the FSF.
I'm puzzled - you say it is FUD; but then you seem to agree with him. How is it FUD?
Well, sorry the term FUD maybe doesn't really fit.
I consider this license as an "edge cases". One of very few! So, while it is a fact that the OSI accepted it while the FSF rejected it, it doesn't mean, that they are far apart. There's not only black and white. That also doesn't mean that they are all equal in my view. There are differences between the FSF and the OSI, and I clearly prefer the position of the FSF in most cases. But that doesn't mean that I see the OSI as an opponent. They are surely not "also interested in non-free licenses as well". The FSF just found a bug in this case, which the OSI didn't see.
2009/3/9 list@akfoerster.de:
I consider this license as an "edge cases". One of very few! So, while it is a fact that the OSI accepted it while the FSF rejected it, it doesn't mean, that they are far apart. There's not only black and white. That also doesn't mean that they are all equal in my view. There are differences between the FSF and the OSI, and I clearly prefer the position of the FSF in most cases. But that doesn't mean that I see the OSI as an opponent. They are surely not "also interested in non-free licenses as well". The FSF just found a bug in this case, which the OSI didn't see.
Indeed. And take the case of the Netscape Public License - the FSF accepted it as 'free software', but the OSI rejected it because it gave too many special rights to Netscape. Does that mean the OSI cares more about the user's freedom than the FSF does?
- d.
Am Montag, 9. März 2009 17:43:05 schrieb list@akfoerster.de:
Am Montag, dem 09. M�r 2009 schrieb Sam Liddicott:
- list wrote, On 09/03/09 11:14:
Am Montag, dem 09. M�r 2009 schrieb Alfred M. Szmidt:
They are also interested in non-free licenses as well, e.g. the NASA public license.
I consider this license as an "edge cases". One of very few! So, while it is a fact that the OSI accepted it while the FSF rejected it, it doesn't mean, that they are far apart. There's not only black and white. That also doesn't mean that they are all equal in my view. There are differences between the FSF and the OSI, and I clearly prefer the position of the FSF in most cases. But that doesn't mean that I see the OSI as an opponent. They are surely not "also interested in non-free licenses as well". The FSF just found a bug in this case, which the OSI didn't see.
Thanks for pointing this out Andreas. I also like to remind all readers that the definition of OSI comes from Debian and they try to explain Free Software differently, but they like to come to the same results.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010406183942/http://opensource.org/advocacy/faq... | How is "open source" related to "free software"? | The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free software. [...]
With the legal situations changing (slightly), technical changes and new licenses coming up all the time, it is an ongoing process to evaluate what Free Software means precisely given a concrete license. The work Debian and OSI is doing is useful to the cause. And sometimes their experts and FSFE's experts disagree on something, but this just shows we are having an active process and discussion.
Bernhard
This list is global. It is operated by fsfe, but that doesn't mean it's a european only list. Feel free to illustrate your idea here, since this a good enough place to start a global conversation. Cheers, stef
2009/3/6, Andres G. Aragoneses aaragoneses@novell.com:
Hello there. Is there a similar discussion list as this one, but global?
My particular interest is to talk about a draft of a new license I want to propose (similar to the AGPL, in the sense that has only small variations, but important ones for the niche I'm thinking of).
Thanks,
--
Andrés G. Aragoneses Software Engineer aaragoneses@novell.com
Novell, Inc. http://www.novell.com/ Software for the open enterprise
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Thanks Stefano. I posted the idea in a new thread called "DGPL".
Andrés
Stefano Maffulli wrote:
This list is global. It is operated by fsfe, but that doesn't mean it's a european only list. Feel free to illustrate your idea here, since this a good enough place to start a global conversation. Cheers, stef
2009/3/6, Andres G. Aragoneses aaragoneses@novell.com:
Hello there. Is there a similar discussion list as this one, but global?
My particular interest is to talk about a draft of a new license I want to propose (similar to the AGPL, in the sense that has only small variations, but important ones for the niche I'm thinking of).
Thanks,
--
Andrés G. Aragoneses Software Engineer aaragoneses@novell.com
Novell, Inc. http://www.novell.com/ Software for the open enterprise