Discuss mailing list

[Jonah Aragon <jonah AT triplebit.net>]

Doesn’t look like .libre’s charter says anything about how modifications are 
handled, so I think you can just send a new email (not reply) to the list 
with [VOTE] instead of [DISCUSSION] at the beginning of the subject and go 
from there. 

Include a deadline in your email for when the vote will end, and maybe if 
possible include a link (via the archive) to this original thread. 

There hasn’t been much discussion on this topic though from what I can tell, 
which might hinder your vote. 

For what it’s worth, I agree. Commercial applications should be allowed on 
the .libre namespace. 

Jonah

> On Oct 17, 2017, at 4:33 AM, Daniel Quintiliani <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org