Discuss mailing list

["Daniel Quintiliani" <danq AT runbox.com>]

"libre vs gratis" is used in the free software movement, as the word "free" 
in English means both "free as in freedom" (libre) and "free of charge" 
(gratis).

--

-Dan Q


On Fri, 09 Jun 2017 19:14:14 -0700, rhargrave <roman AT hargrave.info> wrote:

> I'm not up to speed on the .free replacement situation, but has anyone 
> suggested the charter of an entirely novel domain deriving its name from 
> the equivalent to 'free' in another language (like .libre)? Perhaps 
> choosing a word from a conlang like Esperanto would also eliminate 
> disagreements based on locality. The charter could be basically identical 
> to .free.
> 
> ---- On Fri, 09 Jun 2017 19:03:21 -0700 vv AT cgs.pw wrote ----
> 
> I think your points are good, and look forward to 
> some discussion about that. Commercial usage can 
> sometimes be a problem in some environments, but 
> I honestly don't think that's going to happen here. 
> In fact I think we should be so lucky as to have 
> commercial interest in our world. It might be good 
> for us. 
> 
> That said, the basic ideas of liberty and freedom 
> are not compatible with such harsh censorship as 
> espoused by the .libre charter. In fact I think it 
> is very wrong and certainly deceptive - I hope not 
> deliberately so. 
> 
> Regards, 
> Ole Juul 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2017 20:18:17 -0400 (EDT) 
> "Daniel Quintiliani" <danq AT runbox.com> wrote: 
> 
> > Hi, 
> > 
> > I really think we need to reopen the choice of the .libre 
> > domain to replace .free. 
> > 
> > The reason being that the charter for .libre forbids 
> > commercial use while every use of .libre (FLOSS) means 
> > "free as in freedom" including the freedom for commercial 
> > use. Therefore .libre is misleading. .libre is closer 
> > to .oss than it is to .free. 
> > 
> > During the vote I suggested merging into .null, but it 
> > was during the voting thread, there was no discussion, 
> > and my vote to merge into .null wound up being the only 
> > vote to do so. Also, .null is intended for individuals, 
> > not organizations, so that was a bad idea anyway. 
> > 
> > While it's still soon enough, I think we should cancel 
> > the .libre domains and switch them to something like: 
> > 
> > .noncom 
> > .noncomm 
> > 
> > or the like. 
> > 
> > I propose .noncom 
> > 
> > Does anyone agree with me on .libre being a bad idea, and 
> > that we should rename it ASAP? 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> > -Dan Q 
> 
> 
> 
> -------- 
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing 
> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org 
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org