Discuss mailing list

[rhargrave <roman AT hargrave.info>]

Which is what made me wonder.

---- On Fri, 09 Jun 2017 19:28:24 -0700 vv AT cgs.pw wrote ----

I think the discussion was not about the word,
nor choice thereof, but about the appropriateness
of the charter.

~ Ole


On Fri, 09 Jun 2017 22:20:21 -0400 (EDT)
"Daniel Quintiliani" <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:

> "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
>
>



--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org