Subject:
|
Re: Moving the License Forward
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:56:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2941 times
|
| |
|
|
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:31:13PM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Peter Howkins wrote:
> > But I still feel that a greater than 50.00000something percent
> > positive vote ought to be needed to move away from something as good
> > as the ShareAlike license.
>
> And I maintain, if there are not enough authors still active at a time
> this potential situation were to come up, It could be near impossible
> to make the change. If there were a situation where the change was
> needed, and there was this hurtle we couldn't get over (again, due to
> inactivity), the community would suffer.
I think the key word here is 'active'. If the requirement is that some
percent of the ACTIVE authors actually are for a change, wouldn't that
work for both of you?
Dan
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
| (...) I think you might be on to something. What's a good definition of ACTIVE? Some ideas I had: a) did activity x within the last y time periods (x could be any of authored, reviewed, participated in a discussion or other) or b) responded to the (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
| (...) positive (...) And I maintain, if there are not enough authors still active at a time this potential situation were to come up, It could be near impossible to make the change. If there were a situation where the change was needed, and there (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
139 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
