Subject:
|
Re: Moving the License Forward
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:42:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3078 times
|
| |
|
|
"Kevin L. Clague" wrote:
>
> There is nothing funny about your 'cynical method' reference. We are trying to
> fix a problem. Wiser folks than us have told us that creating a bullet proof
> license is *much harder* than it appears.
And yet you appear to be trying to write one, the contributor
agreement.
Although I don't have any particular experience in writing
licenses, I have done a fair bit of work with them, at one
point my company required me to read and understand our
requirements for a group of libraries (software term for
included parts in our own program) that were licensed under
different free and open licenses.
I'm happy to assist in tightening up the language of any
license once we've had a bit more debate as to hammer out
its details.
<snip>
> >
> > Maybe if I posted some of my 'Doooom' scenarios, it would help
> > others see why I'm a tad worried about this? And fill in
> > various holes to prevent them.
>
> Specific doom day scenarios might help, rather than the vague generalizations
> you are throwing out now.
>
> Please provide specifics.
I was intending to leave this until after the next draft came
out as I believe that might fix some of the issues, but this
scenario is based on the CA as described so far.
This is very hypothetical, but before you say 'This could
never happen', the only reason I'm harping on is because
I can see no specific reason that this can't happen.
1) CA agreement is brought in as described. There is much
rejoicing by people who finally know what they can and can't
do with the parts. About 15 people tick the tick box saying
they will support the SteerCo in future EndUser license
decisions based on the current SteerCo's good reputation
and conduct.
2) A few years down the line (insert arbitrary number)
there is another SteerCo election. An unknown group,
or perhaps a known group with an undisclosed agenda stands.
The group nominates and has elected 5 members as they
convince their freinds/family/random associates to sign
up to ldraw.org to get voting rights. This is the bit
that stretches the imagination, but as I didn't see how
many people voted in the last election I'm not sure
how many people it would take, but I believe it's
< 100.
3) They propose an enduser license along the lines of
"You can use this library with the ldraw program but not
BlockBuilder (made up to avoid any nointention insult)
program". This license under the previous CA draft could
contain any clauses it wanted too.
4) Due to the intervening years many of the contact
addresses of people that need to vote how expired. So
when the vote comes, the SteerCo takes the 15 votes in
it's pocket, it's own 5 votes. And despite the best
efforts of the currently active and contactable voters
they can only raise 12 votes to oppose it.
You can probably see how this would likely be a bad thing
as it would probably go against the will of both past
and present people with voting rights.
This scenario can probably be prevented by Dan Boger and
Jacob Sparre Andersen's suggestion that any new EndUser
license should at least meet a set of base criteria.
That with Steve Bliss and others suggestion that the
pre approving check box be removed.
This would mean that the license remains open and that
those that get to make any changes are those that are
currently active in the field.
As I said, I probably should have waited for the next draft :)
Peter
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
| (...) It would seem the general concensus that we need Licensing, so we need a license, even if it is hard to do. Agree? (...) Great. WHen you point out an issue with the license it is greatly appreciated that you provide an alternate solution to (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
| (...) <snip> (...) Quoting Yoda, "Hard to see, the future is". The ability to change the ShareAlike license is to hedge our bets against unforseen issues. If you are omnipotent (should I call you Q?), then you can see all forseeable issues and can (...) (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
|
|
|
|
