Hi, I read it and like it. The goals and objectives are easy to grasp and described well.
Regarding the license at the bottom I would suggest replacing "laxer" with "more permissive". I think that's the common way to describe a more liberal license. And personally I would like to see the removal of the following paragraph, although I do understand why it's there: "The entries need not agree with all the positions of the FSFE; however, as we have our own agenda, your entry should be favourable to Free Software and Open Standards." I would really like to read entries that are not favorable to FS and Open Standards. It could be an opportunity to learn from and I think it's always interesting to avoid group think now and then, just to keep your thoughts fresh and your reasoning sound. Cheers, Jelle On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:30:24 +0100, [email protected] wrote: > Our announcement draft > <http://etherpad.fsfe.org/ep/pad/view/pg04Sk1jUa/lbwQlO8ja1> is nearly > finalized. It is still waiting for the information on prizes and jury. > All sort of comments would be welcome. > > > -- > Heiki "Repentinus" Ojasild > <[email protected]> > <https://wiki.fsfe.org/Fellows/repentinus> > <http://blogs.fsfe.org/repentinus/> > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
