Discuss mailing list

[Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net>]

    As the maintainer of .free/.libre, I've been watching the threads on
    this subject with a bit of curiosity.  I am surprised that not one
    person actually *asked* for my opinion on the subject.  On the other
    hand I'm not surprised at all that there was absolutely no
    discussion on the matter -- personally I believe this signifies that
    most people here feel there is really nothing to discuss on the
    matter.
    
    So let's discuss two points here.  First off is your inference that
    your repeated suggestions on IRC towards the .libre charter were
    ignored.  However you failed to mention that the first time I was
    actually online when you made this suggestion, we did have a brief
    discussion on the matter in which I immediately told you that I have
    been planning on reviewing ALL of the charters under my purview and
    updating the contents as needed.  Unfortunately time has been
    limited lately as I have some paying projects I've been working on. 
    That doesn't mean your suggestions were ignored or disregarded, it
    simply means what it is... I'll get to it when I have the time.
    
    The next issue I want to mention is your fixation on a dictionary
    definition of libre and how it supposedly changes the meaning of the
    domains registered under the TLD.  Your unwavering commitment to
    this incorrect point of view is what derailed our discussion on IRC
    and prevented any real discussion of changes to the charter, so let
    me reiterate my point of view...  The .libre TLD was voted on as a
    *direct* replacement for .free.  It was not voted on as "something
    with a different meaning that needs a new charter".  In fact the
    vote was between .libre and .liber, which probably also has a
    different definition if you want to look at the strict definitions,
    however none of that matters.  ICANN has registered .free and it's
    only a matter of time before they start officially using it, so the
    vote was for a suitable *direct* replacement for .free.  At the time
    of the vote there was no discussion regarding changes to the
    charter, but the members of opennic did vote to continue the spirit
    of .free under a new TLD rather than dropping it completely.  The
    point is that we could have voted on anything as a replacement.  If
    we had instead chosen to go with ".monkey" would you be arguing that
    the charter needs to be changed to require bananas on every domain? 
    You were part of the discussion when the vote happened, so you know
    what considerations were made, and you are aware that the new TLD
    was chosen as something that is widely recognized to have a
    *similar* meaning as .free (noting that we already knew it was not
    an *exact* replacement).  Again, the dictionary definition was never
    the point, we simply wanted to have a replacement for a somewhat
    popular TLD which would take on the same purpose, including the
    existing charter and registered domains.  If you were discussing a
    new TLD with a charter that was still being developed then there
    might be a reason for this debate, but my opinion is that since
    .libre was only created as a direct replacement for .free, the only
    discussions we should be having would have to be related towards the
    definition of "free" which was the original and true intent of those
    domains.
    
    With all of that said, I'll turn back once again to your original
    proposal, which was in regards to loosening or better defining the
    restrictions on commercial use of .libre domains.  As mentioned
    above, nobody ever *asked* me what I thought of the proposal, and it
    would have saved you an awful lot of trouble if you had.  I actually
    think it's a good idea and would be beneficial in clearing up the
    charter language.  The only question here is WHICH charter...  The
    suggestions you have written below are ALSO mostly describing the
    exact purpose of .oss domains.  As I am also the maintainer of that
    TLD, this gives me something else to think about -- should I still
    maintain two separate TLDs, or should I consider the new name for
    .free as being more inclusive and able to absorb the purpose and
    intent of both TLDs?  It's always a tough choice to consider the
    removal of a TLD from opennic, and I have a lot of nostalgia towards
    one of our very first TLDs created, but I also recognize that
    opennic should grow and change to meet the needs of our members.  If
    .oss already serves the purpose of the potentially commercial but
    free products as described below, then what purpose would it serve
    to also allow the same rules under .libre?  However if "libre" now
    encompasses the full spirit of what .free and .oss were intended to
    be, then does it really make sense to maintain them separately?
    
    Of course before I make any radical changes I will start a new
    discussion and put it to a vote, but hopefully you understand why
    making any changes to the .free charter are not as simple as "the
    new word means this".  There's a lot to think about before changing
    any of the charters, and I need to weigh the consequences of those
    changes and how they might relate towards other existing TLDs.

On 10/29/2017 06:15 AM, Daniel Quintiliani wrote:

Hi,

Here are the results of the vote:

YES (4):
Daniel Quintiliani
Jonah Aragon
Al Beano
Rouben

NO (1):
Christopher

The results are 4-1.
Again the vote is a *nonbinding recommendation* to the maintainer of the .libre TLD to add the following to the charter:

"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."

--

-Dan Q
      
      
      

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