[zeromq-dev] Proposal for next stable release

[john skaller]

On 19/03/2012, at 7:24 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
> 
> I've finished C4, which aims to turn our ZeroMQ collaboration process
> into something reusable by others.
> 
> Would you take a look and critique it? http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:16


Replace project SHALL use LGPL with specified way to specify licence,
E.G.

Project SHALL specify software licence on Homepage and
SHALL provide LICENCE file in top level of repository.

====

Also please think about licence change process.
I have no answers here for the purveyors of restrictive licences,
but in practice lack of this has
proven to be a very serious impediment. 

The impact should not be ignored. See Apple vs. GNU:
Apple drops support for gcc in favour of clang/LLVM for many
reasons but licence change for gcc was a key trigger.
It's not even clear to me GNU was entitled to change the
licence. It is clear Apple thought the change was significant
enough it impacted its own development policy in a major
way.

Whatever you think about those events, it's important for those
applying and contributing to projects to understand how licence
terms could change. Many people would be put off if the
freedoms granted by a licence were subsequently restricted
and thereby possibly reduced the utility of the work they did.
Many people would be put off if the freedoms granted were
extended, since that might allow, for example, commercial 
development using their work without recognition or
compensation.

But it's a reality that a project NEEDS to be able to change
the licence terms.

FWIW I view GNU licences as archaic, restrictive, counterproductive
dinosaurs which prop up the existing ugly capitalist authoritarian
quasi-legal system which retains intellectual property rights by force of arms.
Such licences attempt to enforce open-ness at the expense of
freedom and leverage a vastly more fundamental evil to do so.

Of course you don't have to agree with my view BUT it is essential
to consider that the community position on a commonly developed
and maintained product may well change in the future, and it must be
possible to relicense the product accordingly.

My only possible suggestion here is: licence can be changed
by a process which includes a VOTE of all contributors.
It's the one place in the process where an actual vote should be
considered.

--
john skaller
skaller at users.sourceforge.net
http://felix-lang.org