[META] a plea

[Chris Travers]

On 9/11/07, Sacha Labourey <sacha.labourey.ml at jboss.org> wrote:
>
> On 09/11/2007 01:12 PM, David Woolley wrote:
> > Gwyn Murray wrote:
> >>
> >> For on-law topics aimed at a legal audience, please check out the
> >> open-bar website and discuss-general list.   www.open-bar.org
> >
> > The off topic threads aren't about general law, they are about whether
> > or not it is legally possible to create open source licences that
> > achieve the objectives of people using them.  They are intimately
> > related to the viability of most, if not, all licence proposals.
> >
> > They belong on a software licensing list, not a general law list.
> >
> For what it's worth, I agree with this. These are recurring topics. If
> the "good answer" to these questions (re-licensing, copyright, etc.) is
> obvious to the OSI, I think the OSI should formally take a stance on
> those and post that official stance somewhere on the OSI web site.


+1

Then,
> license-discuss could really be used to discuss new licenses BASED on
> these premises. Then, it would be OK to ban any discussion related to
> these premises from license-discuss (you could open another ML for that).
>
> However, simply dismissing these topics or calling people "trolls"
> because they keep raising them is not fine IMO: if you don't take an
> official stance don't be surprised if people keep "sharing their view".



For that matter we need prominant and official guidelines as to what the
list is about.  At the moment, there is *nothing* on the OSI site which
circumscribes accepted topics on this list.  Furthermore if you request a
list faq, again there is none.

No guidelines and a list named "license-discuss."  Why are people surprised
that people use the list to discuss licenses in a free-form manner?

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070911/7f93d785/attachment.html>