Subject:
|
Re: Moving the License Forward
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:54:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3076 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Peter Howkins wrote:
> "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.
It would seem the general concensus that we need Licensing, so we need a
license, even if it is hard to do. Agree?
>
> 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.
Great. WHen you point out an issue with the license it is greatly appreciated
that you provide an alternate solution to the problem you uncover.
>
> <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.
And this change has to get voted on by the general populus who would be aware
enough to vote it down. If there aren't enough prople to vote something like
that down, then the LDraw community would have basically dwindled away. If
there is virtually no community, then does it really matter?
>
> 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.
Sure.
>
> 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.
OK.
>
> 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 :)
Or not. Explaining that scenario provides a problem statement and a vague
solution statement. This is very helpful.
I'd like to hear any other doomsday scenarios you have ASAP, rather than waiting
for the next draft of the CA. The license draft process could take a very long
time, so anything you can do to help move it forward at just the right rate
would be greatly appreciated.
Lets get it all out on the table now.
>
> Peter
Thanks,
Kevin
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 15-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
|
|
|
|
