On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Stefan Taxhet (sonews) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Alexandro, > > Alexandro Colorado wrote: >> >> FSF launched a statement about pushing free-only listing for OOo >> extensions. They approach the community counsil and was rejected >> according to a post on LWN.net. I want to express my support for FSF >> since is a reasonable petition and also trivially done in drupal by >> using categories. >> http://lwn.net/Articles/386838/ > > See the answer here > http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=announce&msgNo=417 > >> From the article, it ask for: >> The FSF asked the OpenOffice.org Community Council to list only free >> software extensions, or to provide a second independent listing which >> only included free extensions, but they declined to change their >> policy. > > Please understand the FSF requirements in more detail and you'll see they > are not as trivially to fulfill as you might think. I can only guess what > you mean by "using categories". But a list "by license category" was not > agreeable as solution. > >> They didn't list the response from the CC, which I would much >> interested in knowing about why did the Counsil didn't comply. If it >> was a resources issue, or was it just that they didnt felt they want >> to do it. >> >> I would like to express that I want to support the free-only listing >> in the extension webpage (not eliminate the non-free but label it as >> non-free). And be able to offer a clear Free-only option on the left >> side of the menu, next to Highest rated, Most Popular etc > > The request was to delete non-free extensions or to run separate > repositories or to use fully separated partitions without crosslinks. > The link "By License" is in place now. But as said it does not satisfy the > FSF's need. > >> Update: >> I did some look up and found that maybe there was a missunderstanding >> of sorts and that maybe FSF contradict itself by asking an alternative >> listing and the wording about creating a different repository vs >> creating a different listing. >> >> "Extensions Repository >> >> The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has notified the CC that the OOo >> Extensions Repository does not conform to FSF principles, as it hosts >> ‘non-free’ software. As a result, any software distributions wishing >> to conform to FSF standards should not make use of the OOo Repository. >> The CC agreed that licence information could be improved on the >> Repository, as this is an important factor people should consider when >> choosing extensions. The FSF would be welcomed to help in providing >> this sorting / filtering mechanism. However, the CC would not support >> a forking or partitioning of the Repository to exclude ‘non-free’ >> extensions. OOo respects the right of its users to make their own >> informed choice of software, and believes this is best achieved by a >> single Repository offering a full selection of extensions. " >> >> I guess this is just a bad PR move, on the wording from both parties. >> A proposal could have been more clear on how to go about it. But just >> saying that "licensing could be improved" sound like passive >> observation rather than something to look into. > > As one first step you find now the "By License" link. The mention of the > license in the description could be worked on to make the used license more > clear in some cases. Furthermore there are extensions where the license is > not clearly mentioned and needs clarification. > You are welcome to help us with the on the Drupal implementation or by > contacting authors of extensions in the "not specified" category. But as it > has been discussed this still does not satisfy what the FSF asked for. > > So we (FSF, OOo CC incl. Extensions Project Lead) had to agree that the > requirements resulting from the FSF mission are too restrictive for the > OpenOffice.org extension repository. > > For follow-ups I would recommend to use the webs...@extensions list. > > Greetings > Stefan
Ok I will participate with the website ML, and I understand about the FSF level of requriement is not acceptable. However I will suggest to take some steps to get the upper hand by recomending this changes: - Name the category as "Free" -- not by license--. Free implies that we are providing a Free only listing - Make the "Free" option by default - Have a non-free category I get this feeling that we are not doing it because FSF came through out of nowhere and wanted to implement their options upon us. But I see FSF as any other contributor, and this things really make us better. I do agree sometime FSF becomes inflexible, however we have the choice to be as free as possible, and is always the best option. By making it easy to be "free" and by default we can strengthen our position with our users without alienating our other users that will use proprietary extensions. I don't think that most proprietary developers will argue against being listed under a non-free category. -- Alexandro Colorado OpenOffice.org Español http://es.openoffice.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
