Egon Willighagen wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Craig James <[email protected]> > wrote: >> If there are specific concerns about specific projects, then >> I'm all for a hearty discussion. If we want to recommend >> specific licenses as "preferred" for all OB projects, then >> that's a good discussion too. > > I agree with Peter that what we should not do, is endorse licenses... > what we should promote is the Open principles: right to redistribute > and modify, without hindrance of any kind.
Maybe "preferred" is too strong of a term, but I don't see why we shouldn't suggest, "If you're working on a project, these licenses have worked well for others, and are compatible with other work being done by BO participants." The issues raised by Andrew today, about the apparent incompatibility of several works by participants in this group, are serious if they prove true. It could be very helpful to offer insights so that new projects don't adopt troublesome licenses. Almost everyone in this group, and almost everyone using BO projects, is well educated, and yet we're not qualified to judge some of these legal issues. Even experts disagree about compatibilities between CC, GPL, BSD, and so on. At the same time, some participants have taken a lot of time to research licensing issues. Why not capture that knowledge here and share it? BO is about sharing, and sharing legal expertise is just as important as sharing chemistry expertise. Craig ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss
