[Savannah-hackers] Re: This web site (called Savannah) is a centralpoin

[Mathieu Roy]

> > Second, adding this means giving two informations in this description
> > : software must be free, and must run on free platform. I think it's a
> > bad idea to mix that here. 
> I do not see why. I think it is an advantage to make it clear from the
> beginning that the license itself is not guarantee that we will host
> some project here.
> 
> > We should keep this description only focused on software freedom.
> Do you see any conflict between software freedom and "that runs on free
> operating systems". I don't.

No conflict but mixing two different kind of matters. One is definitely
the goal, the other is a way to the goal.

 
> > Also saying "we also host Free Software projects that are not part of
> > the GNU Project, but run on free platforms" can be misleading,
> > almost opposing being part of the GNU project and running on free
> > platforms. 
> OK, I agree. I had not notice that it could be misinterpreted. How about:
>    being part of the GNU project is not a requirement for your
>    Free Software project to be hosted here. If it is Free
>    Software and runs at least on one free operating system, you can register
>    your project in this site.

It would be ok, but I still prefer the idea of adding a separate
part, I still prefer make distinction between the goal and the
meanings. 
    
> I think that the "runs on free OS" requirement is much more limiting than
> the GPL-compatible license. GPL-compatible includes most commonly used Free
> licenses (even MBSD which amounts to public domain). A user can likely opt
> for one of those license during the registration procedure, once he finds
> out he has to do so. However, if he already works exclusively on Windows,
> he will either go through with the registration, ignoring that
> requirement, or get upset that we did not tell him about it before starting
> the registration process.

That's right, it should be told before he starts creating an
account. But GPL-compatible seems really important too, since it
means, for instance, that we cannot accept apache-like licensed
software, despite the fact that we consider apache-like licensed
software as free software. 
We have good reasons to refuses apache-like licensed software, like we
have good reasons to refuses free software that only run on Microsoft
OSes. Thoses two cases seems very similar, that why I think, if we
choose to talk about them, we should separate them from the real goal
and put them together. 

No?

-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
 << Profile  << http://savannah.gnu.org/users/yeupou <<
 >> Homepage >> http://yeupou.coleumes.org           >>
 << GPG Key  << http://stock.coleumes.org/gpg        <<