[csw-maintainers] [POLICY] opencsw-policy: The copyright notice

[Peter FELECAN]

Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:

> On 3/1/11, Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:
>>
>>> it was not one of us 3, sure. but someone did.
>>>
>>> Presumably, we are still having these discussions on "the maintainers
>>> list", for exactly this purpose? So other maintainers can read what
>>> we're saying, and also freely add comments?
>>>
>>> So.. are "we 3" going to pay attention to those comments, or just ignore
>>> them?
>>
>> Alright. I re-read the thread, please do it also. William proposed
>> CDDL. You proposed to not have a license, neither an abstract. Sebastian
>> and Ben agreed to have GPL. Finally, what's your point?
>>
>
> So there we go. I validly reported "someone suggested a difference license".
> Now how about you answer my question of,
>  are "we 3" going to pay attention to those comments[both in this
> specific case,and in the general case], or just ignore them?
>
> Your prior message seemed to imply that since we are the people who
> formally volunteered for the policy board, we can ignore input from
> others.
> (In which case I would ask, why are we discussing policy issues on the
> maintainers list then?)


Here, again, you interpret what I'm writing to suit your goals. My
previous messages were just a summary of how many people has expressed
their opinion.

> My opinion is that we should pay attention to them, both in the
> specific, and the general case. What's your, and Maciej's opinion on
> this?

Who said something else? It's again your insinuation that we are not
caring for other people opinion when in fact, by you rehashing the same
points, you try to impose your point on everybody else.

> (For the "specific instance" . someone has raised the suggestion of an
> alternative license. there have been no discussions on relative merits
> of GPL vs CDDL.
> To just pick a license for our documentation, based on only the
> handful of people who have spoken up so far, that is going to apply
> for all our docs, for a Very Long Time, without any analysis of which,
> if any, is better... strikes me as.. rash.
>
>
> PS; to address someone's comment of "what about if someone wants to
> 'use our documentation work' for future purposes and other
> projects"... there is also the possibility of simply making our
> documentation fully "public domain".
>
> So, possibilities that have been now mentioned are:
>
> a) none
> b) GPL
> c) CDDL
> d) public domain

b was supported by 5 people
c was suggested by 1 person
a & d are supported/proposed by your self (yes, you added also BSD)

> Anyone want to state *why* one is particularly better than the other
> choices, in their opinion?
>
> It would probably help to also state up front, what the perceived
> benefit of having a copyright notice is. The only one I have seen so
> far is, "[to clearly allow people to use our documentation for other
> projectsj]".
>
> If that is the only goal, then it seems we want to be as permissive as
> possible. The option that fits "most permissive" from the above list,
> is "public domain".

All this discussion is meaningless and will go until the end of ages
having the same level of ridiculousness as that on the gender of angels.

Frankly, I think that nothing is coming out of this. The only thing
which suits you is something that you've written completely. Nothing else
is good. That is an egotistical stance.

Consequently, having this discussion with you is a fight against
windmills, and I'm abandoning it.

KO
-- 
Peter