Discuss mailing list

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

How/when do I start a voting thread on this?

--

-Dan Q

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 01:07:18 -0400 (EDT), "Daniel Quintiliani" 
<danq AT runbox.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I have suggested several times on the list and on IRC that the use of 
> .libre as a replacement for .free is not a good one as the charter for 
> .free/.libre violates "libre" according to every definition, and may even 
> violate the GPL if such material was hosted on one.
> 
> The .free charter creates a walled garden of non-commercial use. This would 
> require gratis use of a domain, while libre use requires there be little 
> restrictions on commercial use (usually requiring attribution or 
> sharealike, applicable to both commercial and noncommercial).
> 
> This is true of both the FSF and the OSI. Creative Commons is a bit 
> different as they have both libre and non-libre licenses, as well as a 
> CC-approved "compatible licenses" exception to -SA licenses, and CC0 is 
> considered a waiver unless the "public license fallback" takes effect. CC0 
> and other public domain equivalent licenses forbid any restrictions be 
> placed on the user.
> 
> I've suggested this problem be solved by using a different TLD such as 
> .noncom, and proposed merging into .null (which I was unaware is also 
> non-commercial but not explicitly walled-garden like .free/.libre). 
> However, I was silenced as my proposed merger into .null was in the voting 
> thread.
> 
> However, there is a better way to handle this problem than all that drama 
> back.
> 
> The owner of the .libre TLD should add to the charter something like:
> 
> "Libre exception to noncommercial use - Commercial use of a .libre domain 
> is permitted if the primary purpose is the hosting of, promotion of, or the 
> site itself is:
> 
> 1) Free content released under a license created or approved by the Free 
> Software Foundation,
> 2) Open source content released under a license created or approved by the 
> Open Source Initiative,
> 3) Content released under a license or waiver created or approved by 
> Creative Commons,
> 4) Content in the public domain
> 5) Content released under a public domain equivalent license."
> 
> As OpenNIC users have no power over the .libre charter, this is just a 
> discussion thread, and if the .libre TLD admin disapproves, we could have a 
> nonbinding vote just to see the community's opinion.
> 
> Anyone else have comments or similar concerns?
> 
> --
> 
> -Dan Q
>