Underfunding or why I am not interested

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

Josh,

Thanks for this:

Josh Berkus wrote at 13:02 (EST) on Monday:
> Is there an actual point to this thread?  It seems like a highly
> theoretical discussion of the merits of various licenses, which is a
> nice thing to have ... elsewhere.

Yes, I was thinking as I read this thread (sorry, took me a few days
after SCALE to catch up with email) is that "you know a project has
'made it' when there are licensing flamewars on your mailing list".  We
"made it" so soon. :)


I should note here that my view about licensing choice is about who is
contributing the code.  Joar did a lot of the initial work, and he asked
if he could put the Affero GPL on it.  Our contract with him for work
required an OSI and FSF approved license, and furthermore that
Conservancy had to approve the license choice.  When Joar asked to use
Affero GPL, I had no good reason to say no.

However, I discussed with Joar about the fact that this would be a
controversial choice -- as this thread shows -- and as such we had to be
prepared to perhaps change to something different.  Joar and I both
remain open-minded to that, and I'll pick up the discussion on Josh's
thread, which I think is the place to discuss this.

Meanwhile, I'd really ask everyone to stay "on topic" with this list.
We need to discuss licensing in so far as we're discussing licensing
choices for code in this project, but debating the merits of various
licensing schemes should only go so far.  I'll pick this up in detail on
the other thread.
-- 
Bradley M. Kuhn, President, Software Freedom Conservancy