Discuss mailing list

[<vv AT cgs.pw>]

Well that brings a little sanity to this discussion.
Thanks Jeff.

On a related note, I'm still scratching my head
over why it's so important to have a TLD be for
specific uses only. There seems no point in that
if there is no one policing usage. And how many
here are in favour of forming a "TLD Usage Policing
and Enforcement Department"? I suspect not many. :)

Cheers,
       Ole
 

On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 11:46:02 -0600
Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net> wrote:

> 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  
>