On 19/03/2012, at 7:24 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote: > > I've finished C4, which aims to turn our ZeroMQ collaboration process > into something reusable by others. > > Would you take a look and critique it? http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:16
Replace project SHALL use LGPL with specified way to specify licence, E.G. Project SHALL specify software licence on Homepage and SHALL provide LICENCE file in top level of repository. ==== Also please think about licence change process. I have no answers here for the purveyors of restrictive licences, but in practice lack of this has proven to be a very serious impediment. The impact should not be ignored. See Apple vs. GNU: Apple drops support for gcc in favour of clang/LLVM for many reasons but licence change for gcc was a key trigger. It's not even clear to me GNU was entitled to change the licence. It is clear Apple thought the change was significant enough it impacted its own development policy in a major way. Whatever you think about those events, it's important for those applying and contributing to projects to understand how licence terms could change. Many people would be put off if the freedoms granted by a licence were subsequently restricted and thereby possibly reduced the utility of the work they did. Many people would be put off if the freedoms granted were extended, since that might allow, for example, commercial development using their work without recognition or compensation. But it's a reality that a project NEEDS to be able to change the licence terms. FWIW I view GNU licences as archaic, restrictive, counterproductive dinosaurs which prop up the existing ugly capitalist authoritarian quasi-legal system which retains intellectual property rights by force of arms. Such licences attempt to enforce open-ness at the expense of freedom and leverage a vastly more fundamental evil to do so. Of course you don't have to agree with my view BUT it is essential to consider that the community position on a commonly developed and maintained product may well change in the future, and it must be possible to relicense the product accordingly. My only possible suggestion here is: licence can be changed by a process which includes a VOTE of all contributors. It's the one place in the process where an actual vote should be considered. -- john skaller [email protected] http://felix-lang.org _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
