Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 > Please make sense if you are going to address me in the future, or
 > don't bother addressing me at all.  Thanks,

Following the thread(s), in order for this working group to make sense,
there must be a reason to look at our licenses. We have found reasons.

In order to change our licensing schemes, there must be something wrong
with the current. Some time ago, it was proposed that there's nothing
wrong with the current, and that was thrown out, just like it was during
the RFC process.

Problems have been identified in what's currently in place:

a) Legally, they're swiss cheese;

b) Realistically, they allow anyone to get away with murder, and a source
or sources of violations of our "spirit" of this magnitude have been
identified (in name and content by persons other than myself); and

c) Stillman et al. aren't happy

A and C may be reason enough to work with rewording the AL, but it has
also been suggested, and I think correctly so, that Larry isn't
particularly litigious, or likely to be especially where the current
violations are concerned. This is extremely important, because by itself,
without considering B at all, a change in the AL would appear to be
superficial at best.

However, if our collective intentions, desires, and goals were clear, the
community itself could become empowered to deal with the particular
problem that currently exists, and possibly future ones as well. This
doesn't mean that we create a charter to punish offenders, or to lay out
punishments, or anything else negative, but merely to say what proper
behavior is by saying what we want to create as a community, and possibly
how we've failed in the past.

Badda bing, badda bang, if that gets thrown out too, we're back at the "A
and C are superficial at best" for the purpose of protecting this language
and culture, which brings back into question why this working group

Following the discussions, it does make quite a bit of sense.


Reply via email to