Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/12/04/license-drafting-responsibility.html

I finally set aside some time to
read my
old boss’ open letter responding to criticisms of the FDL process.
I read gladly his discussion of the responsibilities of software freedom
license stewardship.

I’ve been involved with the drafting of a number of FLOSS licenses (and
exceptions to existing licenses). For example, I helped RMS a little
with the initial FDL 1.0 drafting (the license at issue here); I was a
catalyst for the creation of Artistic 2.0 and advised that process; and,
I was
heavily involved with the creation of the AGPL, and somewhat with
the GPLv3. From these experiences, I know that, just like when a core developer gets annoyed
when kibitzed by a user who just downloaded the program and is missing
something obvious, we license drafters are human and often have the
“did this person even read all the stuff we’ve written on
this issue?” knee-jerk response to criticism. However, we all try
to put that aside, and be ready to respond and take seriously any
reasonable criticism. I am glad that RMS has done so here. The entity
that controls future versions of a license for which authors often use
an “or later” term holds great power. As the clichéd
Spiderman saying goes, with great power, comes great
responsibility.

The FSF as a whole, and RMS in particular, have always know this well
and take it very seriously. Indeed, years ago, when I was still at FSF,
RMS and I
wrote an
essay together on a closely related
issue. This
recent response on FDL reiterates some of those points, but with a
real-world example explaining the decision making process regarding the
reasonable exercise of that power to, in turn, grant rights and freedoms
rather than take them away.

The key quote from his letter that stands out to me is: our
commitment is that our changes to a license will stick to the spirit of
that license, and will uphold the purposes for which we wrote it.
This point is fundamental. As FLOSS license drafters, we must always, as
RMS says, abide by the highest ethical standards to uphold the
spirit that spurred the creation of these licenses.

Far from being annoyed, I’m grateful for those who assume the worst of
intentions and demand that we justify ourselves. For my part, I try to
answer every question I get at conferences and in email about licensing
policy as best I can with this point in mind. We in the non-profit
licensing sector of the FLOSS world have a duty to the community of FLOSS
users and programmers to defend their software freedom. I try to make
every decision, on licensing policy (or, indeed, any issue) with that goal
in mind. I know that my colleagues at the FSF and at the many other
not-for-profit organizations always do the same, too.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/12/04/license-drafting-responsibility.html

I finally set aside some time to
read my
old boss’ open letter responding to criticisms of the FDL process.
I read gladly his discussion of the responsibilities of software freedom
license stewardship.

I’ve been involved with the drafting of a number of FLOSS licenses (and
exceptions to existing licenses). For example, I helped RMS a little
with the initial FDL 1.0 drafting (the license at issue here); I was a
catalyst for the creation of Artistic 2.0 and advised that process; and,
I was
heavily involved with the creation of the AGPL, and somewhat with
the GPLv3. From these experiences, I know that, just like when a core developer gets annoyed
when kibitzed by a user who just downloaded the program and is missing
something obvious, we license drafters are human and often have the
“did this person even read all the stuff we’ve written on
this issue?” knee-jerk response to criticism. However, we all try
to put that aside, and be ready to respond and take seriously any
reasonable criticism. I am glad that RMS has done so here. The entity
that controls future versions of a license for which authors often use
an “or later” term holds great power. As the clichéd
Spiderman saying goes, with great power, comes great
responsibility.

The FSF as a whole, and RMS in particular, have always know this well
and take it very seriously. Indeed, years ago, when I was still at FSF,
RMS and I
wrote an
essay together on a closely related
issue. This
recent response on FDL reiterates some of those points, but with a
real-world example explaining the decision making process regarding the
reasonable exercise of that power to, in turn, grant rights and freedoms
rather than take them away.

The key quote from his letter that stands out to me is: our
commitment is that our changes to a license will stick to the spirit of
that license, and will uphold the purposes for which we wrote it.
This point is fundamental. As FLOSS license drafters, we must always, as
RMS says, abide by the highest ethical standards to uphold the
spirit that spurred the creation of these licenses.

Far from being annoyed, I’m grateful for those who assume the worst of
intentions and demand that we justify ourselves. For my part, I try to
answer every question I get at conferences and in email about licensing
policy as best I can with this point in mind. We in the non-profit
licensing sector of the FLOSS world have a duty to the community of FLOSS
users and programmers to defend their software freedom. I try to make
every decision, on licensing policy (or, indeed, any issue) with that goal
in mind. I know that my colleagues at the FSF and at the many other
not-for-profit organizations always do the same, too.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/12/04/license-drafting-responsibility.html

I finally set aside some time to
read my
old boss’ open letter responding to criticisms of the FDL process.
I read gladly his discussion of the responsibilities of software freedom
license stewardship.

I’ve been involved with the drafting of a number of FLOSS licenses (and
exceptions to existing licenses). For example, I helped RMS a little
with the initial FDL 1.0 drafting (the license at issue here); I was a
catalyst for the creation of Artistic 2.0 and advised that process; and,
I was
heavily involved with the creation of the AGPL, and somewhat with
the GPLv3. From these experiences, I know that, just like when a core developer gets annoyed
when kibitzed by a user who just downloaded the program and is missing
something obvious, we license drafters are human and often have the
“did this person even read all the stuff we’ve written on
this issue?” knee-jerk response to criticism. However, we all try
to put that aside, and be ready to respond and take seriously any
reasonable criticism. I am glad that RMS has done so here. The entity
that controls future versions of a license for which authors often use
an “or later” term holds great power. As the clichéd
Spiderman saying goes, with great power, comes great
responsibility.

The FSF as a whole, and RMS in particular, have always know this well
and take it very seriously. Indeed, years ago, when I was still at FSF,
RMS and I
wrote an
essay together on a closely related
issue. This
recent response on FDL reiterates some of those points, but with a
real-world example explaining the decision making process regarding the
reasonable exercise of that power to, in turn, grant rights and freedoms
rather than take them away.

The key quote from his letter that stands out to me is: our
commitment is that our changes to a license will stick to the spirit of
that license, and will uphold the purposes for which we wrote it.
This point is fundamental. As FLOSS license drafters, we must always, as
RMS says, abide by the highest ethical standards to uphold the
spirit that spurred the creation of these licenses.

Far from being annoyed, I’m grateful for those who assume the worst of
intentions and demand that we justify ourselves. For my part, I try to
answer every question I get at conferences and in email about licensing
policy as best I can with this point in mind. We in the non-profit
licensing sector of the FLOSS world have a duty to the community of FLOSS
users and programmers to defend their software freedom. I try to make
every decision, on licensing policy (or, indeed, any issue) with that goal
in mind. I know that my colleagues at the FSF and at the many other
not-for-profit organizations always do the same, too.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/12/04/license-drafting-responsibility.html

I finally set aside some time to
read my
old boss’ open letter responding to criticisms of the FDL process.
I read gladly his discussion of the responsibilities of software freedom
license stewardship.

I’ve been involved with the drafting of a number of FLOSS licenses (and
exceptions to existing licenses). For example, I helped RMS a little
with the initial FDL 1.0 drafting (the license at issue here); I was a
catalyst for the creation of Artistic 2.0 and advised that process; and,
I was
heavily involved with the creation of the AGPL, and somewhat with
the GPLv3. From these experiences, I know that, just like when a core developer gets annoyed
when kibitzed by a user who just downloaded the program and is missing
something obvious, we license drafters are human and often have the
“did this person even read all the stuff we’ve written on
this issue?” knee-jerk response to criticism. However, we all try
to put that aside, and be ready to respond and take seriously any
reasonable criticism. I am glad that RMS has done so here. The entity
that controls future versions of a license for which authors often use
an “or later” term holds great power. As the clichéd
Spiderman saying goes, with great power, comes great
responsibility.

The FSF as a whole, and RMS in particular, have always know this well
and take it very seriously. Indeed, years ago, when I was still at FSF,
RMS and I
wrote an
essay together on a closely related
issue. This
recent response on FDL reiterates some of those points, but with a
real-world example explaining the decision making process regarding the
reasonable exercise of that power to, in turn, grant rights and freedoms
rather than take them away.

The key quote from his letter that stands out to me is: our
commitment is that our changes to a license will stick to the spirit of
that license, and will uphold the purposes for which we wrote it.
This point is fundamental. As FLOSS license drafters, we must always, as
RMS says, abide by the highest ethical standards to uphold the
spirit that spurred the creation of these licenses.

Far from being annoyed, I’m grateful for those who assume the worst of
intentions and demand that we justify ourselves. For my part, I try to
answer every question I get at conferences and in email about licensing
policy as best I can with this point in mind. We in the non-profit
licensing sector of the FLOSS world have a duty to the community of FLOSS
users and programmers to defend their software freedom. I try to make
every decision, on licensing policy (or, indeed, any issue) with that goal
in mind. I know that my colleagues at the FSF and at the many other
not-for-profit organizations always do the same, too.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/12/04/license-drafting-responsibility.html

I finally set aside some time to
read my
old boss’ open letter responding to criticisms of the FDL process.
I read gladly his discussion of the responsibilities of software freedom
license stewardship.

I’ve been involved with the drafting of a number of FLOSS licenses (and
exceptions to existing licenses). For example, I helped RMS a little
with the initial FDL 1.0 drafting (the license at issue here); I was a
catalyst for the creation of Artistic 2.0 and advised that process; and,
I was
heavily involved with the creation of the AGPL, and somewhat with
the GPLv3. From these experiences, I know that, just like when a core developer gets annoyed
when kibitzed by a user who just downloaded the program and is missing
something obvious, we license drafters are human and often have the
“did this person even read all the stuff we’ve written on
this issue?” knee-jerk response to criticism. However, we all try
to put that aside, and be ready to respond and take seriously any
reasonable criticism. I am glad that RMS has done so here. The entity
that controls future versions of a license for which authors often use
an “or later” term holds great power. As the clichéd
Spiderman saying goes, with great power, comes great
responsibility.

The FSF as a whole, and RMS in particular, have always know this well
and take it very seriously. Indeed, years ago, when I was still at FSF,
RMS and I
wrote an
essay together on a closely related
issue. This
recent response on FDL reiterates some of those points, but with a
real-world example explaining the decision making process regarding the
reasonable exercise of that power to, in turn, grant rights and freedoms
rather than take them away.

The key quote from his letter that stands out to me is: our
commitment is that our changes to a license will stick to the spirit of
that license, and will uphold the purposes for which we wrote it.
This point is fundamental. As FLOSS license drafters, we must always, as
RMS says, abide by the highest ethical standards to uphold the
spirit that spurred the creation of these licenses.

Far from being annoyed, I’m grateful for those who assume the worst of
intentions and demand that we justify ourselves. For my part, I try to
answer every question I get at conferences and in email about licensing
policy as best I can with this point in mind. We in the non-profit
licensing sector of the FLOSS world have a duty to the community of FLOSS
users and programmers to defend their software freedom. I try to make
every decision, on licensing policy (or, indeed, any issue) with that goal
in mind. I know that my colleagues at the FSF and at the many other
not-for-profit organizations always do the same, too.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/12/04/license-drafting-responsibility.html

I finally set aside some time to
read my
old boss’ open letter responding to criticisms of the FDL process.
I read gladly his discussion of the responsibilities of software freedom
license stewardship.

I’ve been involved with the drafting of a number of FLOSS licenses (and
exceptions to existing licenses). For example, I helped RMS a little
with the initial FDL 1.0 drafting (the license at issue here); I was a
catalyst for the creation of Artistic 2.0 and advised that process; and,
I was
heavily involved with the creation of the AGPL, and somewhat with
the GPLv3. From these experiences, I know that, just like when a core developer gets annoyed
when kibitzed by a user who just downloaded the program and is missing
something obvious, we license drafters are human and often have the
“did this person even read all the stuff we’ve written on
this issue?” knee-jerk response to criticism. However, we all try
to put that aside, and be ready to respond and take seriously any
reasonable criticism. I am glad that RMS has done so here. The entity
that controls future versions of a license for which authors often use
an “or later” term holds great power. As the clichéd
Spiderman saying goes, with great power, comes great
responsibility.

The FSF as a whole, and RMS in particular, have always know this well
and take it very seriously. Indeed, years ago, when I was still at FSF,
RMS and I
wrote an
essay together on a closely related
issue. This
recent response on FDL reiterates some of those points, but with a
real-world example explaining the decision making process regarding the
reasonable exercise of that power to, in turn, grant rights and freedoms
rather than take them away.

The key quote from his letter that stands out to me is: our
commitment is that our changes to a license will stick to the spirit of
that license, and will uphold the purposes for which we wrote it.
This point is fundamental. As FLOSS license drafters, we must always, as
RMS says, abide by the highest ethical standards to uphold the
spirit that spurred the creation of these licenses.

Far from being annoyed, I’m grateful for those who assume the worst of
intentions and demand that we justify ourselves. For my part, I try to
answer every question I get at conferences and in email about licensing
policy as best I can with this point in mind. We in the non-profit
licensing sector of the FLOSS world have a duty to the community of FLOSS
users and programmers to defend their software freedom. I try to make
every decision, on licensing policy (or, indeed, any issue) with that goal
in mind. I know that my colleagues at the FSF and at the many other
not-for-profit organizations always do the same, too.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/12/04/license-drafting-responsibility.html

I finally set aside some time to
read my
old boss’ open letter responding to criticisms of the FDL process.
I read gladly his discussion of the responsibilities of software freedom
license stewardship.

I’ve been involved with the drafting of a number of FLOSS licenses (and
exceptions to existing licenses). For example, I helped RMS a little
with the initial FDL 1.0 drafting (the license at issue here); I was a
catalyst for the creation of Artistic 2.0 and advised that process; and,
I was
heavily involved with the creation of the AGPL, and somewhat with
the GPLv3. From these experiences, I know that, just like when a core developer gets annoyed
when kibitzed by a user who just downloaded the program and is missing
something obvious, we license drafters are human and often have the
“did this person even read all the stuff we’ve written on
this issue?” knee-jerk response to criticism. However, we all try
to put that aside, and be ready to respond and take seriously any
reasonable criticism. I am glad that RMS has done so here. The entity
that controls future versions of a license for which authors often use
an “or later” term holds great power. As the clichéd
Spiderman saying goes, with great power, comes great
responsibility.

The FSF as a whole, and RMS in particular, have always know this well
and take it very seriously. Indeed, years ago, when I was still at FSF,
RMS and I
wrote an
essay together on a closely related
issue. This
recent response on FDL reiterates some of those points, but with a
real-world example explaining the decision making process regarding the
reasonable exercise of that power to, in turn, grant rights and freedoms
rather than take them away.

The key quote from his letter that stands out to me is: our
commitment is that our changes to a license will stick to the spirit of
that license, and will uphold the purposes for which we wrote it.
This point is fundamental. As FLOSS license drafters, we must always, as
RMS says, abide by the highest ethical standards to uphold the
spirit that spurred the creation of these licenses.

Far from being annoyed, I’m grateful for those who assume the worst of
intentions and demand that we justify ourselves. For my part, I try to
answer every question I get at conferences and in email about licensing
policy as best I can with this point in mind. We in the non-profit
licensing sector of the FLOSS world have a duty to the community of FLOSS
users and programmers to defend their software freedom. I try to make
every decision, on licensing policy (or, indeed, any issue) with that goal
in mind. I know that my colleagues at the FSF and at the many other
not-for-profit organizations always do the same, too.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/12/04/license-drafting-responsibility.html

I finally set aside some time to
read my
old boss’ open letter responding to criticisms of the FDL process.
I read gladly his discussion of the responsibilities of software freedom
license stewardship.

I’ve been involved with the drafting of a number of FLOSS licenses (and
exceptions to existing licenses). For example, I helped RMS a little
with the initial FDL 1.0 drafting (the license at issue here); I was a
catalyst for the creation of Artistic 2.0 and advised that process; and,
I was
heavily involved with the creation of the AGPL, and somewhat with
the GPLv3. From these experiences, I know that, just like when a core developer gets annoyed
when kibitzed by a user who just downloaded the program and is missing
something obvious, we license drafters are human and often have the
“did this person even read all the stuff we’ve written on
this issue?” knee-jerk response to criticism. However, we all try
to put that aside, and be ready to respond and take seriously any
reasonable criticism. I am glad that RMS has done so here. The entity
that controls future versions of a license for which authors often use
an “or later” term holds great power. As the clichéd
Spiderman saying goes, with great power, comes great
responsibility.

The FSF as a whole, and RMS in particular, have always know this well
and take it very seriously. Indeed, years ago, when I was still at FSF,
RMS and I
wrote an
essay together on a closely related
issue. This
recent response on FDL reiterates some of those points, but with a
real-world example explaining the decision making process regarding the
reasonable exercise of that power to, in turn, grant rights and freedoms
rather than take them away.

The key quote from his letter that stands out to me is: our
commitment is that our changes to a license will stick to the spirit of
that license, and will uphold the purposes for which we wrote it.
This point is fundamental. As FLOSS license drafters, we must always, as
RMS says, abide by the highest ethical standards to uphold the
spirit that spurred the creation of these licenses.

Far from being annoyed, I’m grateful for those who assume the worst of
intentions and demand that we justify ourselves. For my part, I try to
answer every question I get at conferences and in email about licensing
policy as best I can with this point in mind. We in the non-profit
licensing sector of the FLOSS world have a duty to the community of FLOSS
users and programmers to defend their software freedom. I try to make
every decision, on licensing policy (or, indeed, any issue) with that goal
in mind. I know that my colleagues at the FSF and at the many other
not-for-profit organizations always do the same, too.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/12/04/license-drafting-responsibility.html

I finally set aside some time to
read my
old boss’ open letter responding to criticisms of the FDL process.
I read gladly his discussion of the responsibilities of software freedom
license stewardship.

I’ve been involved with the drafting of a number of FLOSS licenses (and
exceptions to existing licenses). For example, I helped RMS a little
with the initial FDL 1.0 drafting (the license at issue here); I was a
catalyst for the creation of Artistic 2.0 and advised that process; and,
I was
heavily involved with the creation of the AGPL, and somewhat with
the GPLv3. From these experiences, I know that, just like when a core developer gets annoyed
when kibitzed by a user who just downloaded the program and is missing
something obvious, we license drafters are human and often have the
“did this person even read all the stuff we’ve written on
this issue?” knee-jerk response to criticism. However, we all try
to put that aside, and be ready to respond and take seriously any
reasonable criticism. I am glad that RMS has done so here. The entity
that controls future versions of a license for which authors often use
an “or later” term holds great power. As the clichéd
Spiderman saying goes, with great power, comes great
responsibility.

The FSF as a whole, and RMS in particular, have always know this well
and take it very seriously. Indeed, years ago, when I was still at FSF,
RMS and I
wrote an
essay together on a closely related
issue. This
recent response on FDL reiterates some of those points, but with a
real-world example explaining the decision making process regarding the
reasonable exercise of that power to, in turn, grant rights and freedoms
rather than take them away.

The key quote from his letter that stands out to me is: our
commitment is that our changes to a license will stick to the spirit of
that license, and will uphold the purposes for which we wrote it.
This point is fundamental. As FLOSS license drafters, we must always, as
RMS says, abide by the highest ethical standards to uphold the
spirit that spurred the creation of these licenses.

Far from being annoyed, I’m grateful for those who assume the worst of
intentions and demand that we justify ourselves. For my part, I try to
answer every question I get at conferences and in email about licensing
policy as best I can with this point in mind. We in the non-profit
licensing sector of the FLOSS world have a duty to the community of FLOSS
users and programmers to defend their software freedom. I try to make
every decision, on licensing policy (or, indeed, any issue) with that goal
in mind. I know that my colleagues at the FSF and at the many other
not-for-profit organizations always do the same, too.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/12/04/license-drafting-responsibility.html

I finally set aside some time to
read my
old boss’ open letter responding to criticisms of the FDL process.
I read gladly his discussion of the responsibilities of software freedom
license stewardship.

I’ve been involved with the drafting of a number of FLOSS licenses (and
exceptions to existing licenses). For example, I helped RMS a little
with the initial FDL 1.0 drafting (the license at issue here); I was a
catalyst for the creation of Artistic 2.0 and advised that process; and,
I was
heavily involved with the creation of the AGPL, and somewhat with
the GPLv3. From these experiences, I know that, just like when a core developer gets annoyed
when kibitzed by a user who just downloaded the program and is missing
something obvious, we license drafters are human and often have the
“did this person even read all the stuff we’ve written on
this issue?” knee-jerk response to criticism. However, we all try
to put that aside, and be ready to respond and take seriously any
reasonable criticism. I am glad that RMS has done so here. The entity
that controls future versions of a license for which authors often use
an “or later” term holds great power. As the clichéd
Spiderman saying goes, with great power, comes great
responsibility.

The FSF as a whole, and RMS in particular, have always know this well
and take it very seriously. Indeed, years ago, when I was still at FSF,
RMS and I
wrote an
essay together on a closely related
issue. This
recent response on FDL reiterates some of those points, but with a
real-world example explaining the decision making process regarding the
reasonable exercise of that power to, in turn, grant rights and freedoms
rather than take them away.

The key quote from his letter that stands out to me is: our
commitment is that our changes to a license will stick to the spirit of
that license, and will uphold the purposes for which we wrote it.
This point is fundamental. As FLOSS license drafters, we must always, as
RMS says, abide by the highest ethical standards to uphold the
spirit that spurred the creation of these licenses.

Far from being annoyed, I’m grateful for those who assume the worst of
intentions and demand that we justify ourselves. For my part, I try to
answer every question I get at conferences and in email about licensing
policy as best I can with this point in mind. We in the non-profit
licensing sector of the FLOSS world have a duty to the community of FLOSS
users and programmers to defend their software freedom. I try to make
every decision, on licensing policy (or, indeed, any issue) with that goal
in mind. I know that my colleagues at the FSF and at the many other
not-for-profit organizations always do the same, too.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/12/04/license-drafting-responsibility.html

I finally set aside some time to
read my
old boss’ open letter responding to criticisms of the FDL process.
I read gladly his discussion of the responsibilities of software freedom
license stewardship.

I’ve been involved with the drafting of a number of FLOSS licenses (and
exceptions to existing licenses). For example, I helped RMS a little
with the initial FDL 1.0 drafting (the license at issue here); I was a
catalyst for the creation of Artistic 2.0 and advised that process; and,
I was
heavily involved with the creation of the AGPL, and somewhat with
the GPLv3. From these experiences, I know that, just like when a core developer gets annoyed
when kibitzed by a user who just downloaded the program and is missing
something obvious, we license drafters are human and often have the
“did this person even read all the stuff we’ve written on
this issue?” knee-jerk response to criticism. However, we all try
to put that aside, and be ready to respond and take seriously any
reasonable criticism. I am glad that RMS has done so here. The entity
that controls future versions of a license for which authors often use
an “or later” term holds great power. As the clichéd
Spiderman saying goes, with great power, comes great
responsibility.

The FSF as a whole, and RMS in particular, have always know this well
and take it very seriously. Indeed, years ago, when I was still at FSF,
RMS and I
wrote an
essay together on a closely related
issue. This
recent response on FDL reiterates some of those points, but with a
real-world example explaining the decision making process regarding the
reasonable exercise of that power to, in turn, grant rights and freedoms
rather than take them away.

The key quote from his letter that stands out to me is: our
commitment is that our changes to a license will stick to the spirit of
that license, and will uphold the purposes for which we wrote it.
This point is fundamental. As FLOSS license drafters, we must always, as
RMS says, abide by the highest ethical standards to uphold the
spirit that spurred the creation of these licenses.

Far from being annoyed, I’m grateful for those who assume the worst of
intentions and demand that we justify ourselves. For my part, I try to
answer every question I get at conferences and in email about licensing
policy as best I can with this point in mind. We in the non-profit
licensing sector of the FLOSS world have a duty to the community of FLOSS
users and programmers to defend their software freedom. I try to make
every decision, on licensing policy (or, indeed, any issue) with that goal
in mind. I know that my colleagues at the FSF and at the many other
not-for-profit organizations always do the same, too.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/12/04/license-drafting-responsibility.html

I finally set aside some time to
read my
old boss’ open letter responding to criticisms of the FDL process.
I read gladly his discussion of the responsibilities of software freedom
license stewardship.

I’ve been involved with the drafting of a number of FLOSS licenses (and
exceptions to existing licenses). For example, I helped RMS a little
with the initial FDL 1.0 drafting (the license at issue here); I was a
catalyst for the creation of Artistic 2.0 and advised that process; and,
I was
heavily involved with the creation of the AGPL, and somewhat with
the GPLv3. From these experiences, I know that, just like when a core developer gets annoyed
when kibitzed by a user who just downloaded the program and is missing
something obvious, we license drafters are human and often have the
“did this person even read all the stuff we’ve written on
this issue?” knee-jerk response to criticism. However, we all try
to put that aside, and be ready to respond and take seriously any
reasonable criticism. I am glad that RMS has done so here. The entity
that controls future versions of a license for which authors often use
an “or later” term holds great power. As the clichéd
Spiderman saying goes, with great power, comes great
responsibility.

The FSF as a whole, and RMS in particular, have always know this well
and take it very seriously. Indeed, years ago, when I was still at FSF,
RMS and I
wrote an
essay together on a closely related
issue. This
recent response on FDL reiterates some of those points, but with a
real-world example explaining the decision making process regarding the
reasonable exercise of that power to, in turn, grant rights and freedoms
rather than take them away.

The key quote from his letter that stands out to me is: our
commitment is that our changes to a license will stick to the spirit of
that license, and will uphold the purposes for which we wrote it.
This point is fundamental. As FLOSS license drafters, we must always, as
RMS says, abide by the highest ethical standards to uphold the
spirit that spurred the creation of these licenses.

Far from being annoyed, I’m grateful for those who assume the worst of
intentions and demand that we justify ourselves. For my part, I try to
answer every question I get at conferences and in email about licensing
policy as best I can with this point in mind. We in the non-profit
licensing sector of the FLOSS world have a duty to the community of FLOSS
users and programmers to defend their software freedom. I try to make
every decision, on licensing policy (or, indeed, any issue) with that goal
in mind. I know that my colleagues at the FSF and at the many other
not-for-profit organizations always do the same, too.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/12/01/agpl-dfsg-free.html

Late last week, the FTP Masters of Debian — who, absent a vote of
the Debian developers, make all licensing decisions —
posted
their ruling that AGPLv3 is DFSG-Free. I was glad to see this issue
was finally resolved after months of confusion;
the AGPLv3
is now approved by all known FLOSS licensing ruling bodies (FSF, OSI,
and Debian).

It was somewhat fitting that the AGPLv3 was approved by Debian within a
week of the one year anniversary
of AGPLv3’s
release. This year of AGPLv3 has shown very rapid adoption of the
AGPL. Even conservative numbers show an adoption rate of 15 projects
per month. I expect the numbers to continue a steady, linear climb as
developers begin to realize that the AGPL is the “copyleft of the
Cloud”.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/12/01/agpl-dfsg-free.html

Late last week, the FTP Masters of Debian — who, absent a vote of
the Debian developers, make all licensing decisions —
posted
their ruling that AGPLv3 is DFSG-Free. I was glad to see this issue
was finally resolved after months of confusion;
the AGPLv3
is now approved by all known FLOSS licensing ruling bodies (FSF, OSI,
and Debian).

It was somewhat fitting that the AGPLv3 was approved by Debian within a
week of the one year anniversary
of AGPLv3’s
release. This year of AGPLv3 has shown very rapid adoption of the
AGPL. Even conservative numbers show an adoption rate of 15 projects
per month. I expect the numbers to continue a steady, linear climb as
developers begin to realize that the AGPL is the “copyleft of the
Cloud”.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/12/01/agpl-dfsg-free.html

Late last week, the FTP Masters of Debian — who, absent a vote of
the Debian developers, make all licensing decisions —
posted
their ruling that AGPLv3 is DFSG-Free. I was glad to see this issue
was finally resolved after months of confusion;
the AGPLv3
is now approved by all known FLOSS licensing ruling bodies (FSF, OSI,
and Debian).

It was somewhat fitting that the AGPLv3 was approved by Debian within a
week of the one year anniversary
of AGPLv3’s
release. This year of AGPLv3 has shown very rapid adoption of the
AGPL. Even conservative numbers show an adoption rate of 15 projects
per month. I expect the numbers to continue a steady, linear climb as
developers begin to realize that the AGPL is the “copyleft of the
Cloud”.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/12/01/agpl-dfsg-free.html

Late last week, the FTP Masters of Debian — who, absent a vote of
the Debian developers, make all licensing decisions —
posted
their ruling that AGPLv3 is DFSG-Free. I was glad to see this issue
was finally resolved after months of confusion;
the AGPLv3
is now approved by all known FLOSS licensing ruling bodies (FSF, OSI,
and Debian).

It was somewhat fitting that the AGPLv3 was approved by Debian within a
week of the one year anniversary
of AGPLv3’s
release. This year of AGPLv3 has shown very rapid adoption of the
AGPL. Even conservative numbers show an adoption rate of 15 projects
per month. I expect the numbers to continue a steady, linear climb as
developers begin to realize that the AGPL is the “copyleft of the
Cloud”.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/12/01/agpl-dfsg-free.html

Late last week, the FTP Masters of Debian — who, absent a vote of
the Debian developers, make all licensing decisions —
posted
their ruling that AGPLv3 is DFSG-Free. I was glad to see this issue
was finally resolved after months of confusion;
the AGPLv3
is now approved by all known FLOSS licensing ruling bodies (FSF, OSI,
and Debian).

It was somewhat fitting that the AGPLv3 was approved by Debian within a
week of the one year anniversary
of AGPLv3’s
release. This year of AGPLv3 has shown very rapid adoption of the
AGPL. Even conservative numbers show an adoption rate of 15 projects
per month. I expect the numbers to continue a steady, linear climb as
developers begin to realize that the AGPL is the “copyleft of the
Cloud”.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/12/01/agpl-dfsg-free.html

Late last week, the FTP Masters of Debian — who, absent a vote of
the Debian developers, make all licensing decisions —
posted
their ruling that AGPLv3 is DFSG-Free. I was glad to see this issue
was finally resolved after months of confusion;
the AGPLv3
is now approved by all known FLOSS licensing ruling bodies (FSF, OSI,
and Debian).

It was somewhat fitting that the AGPLv3 was approved by Debian within a
week of the one year anniversary
of AGPLv3’s
release. This year of AGPLv3 has shown very rapid adoption of the
AGPL. Even conservative numbers show an adoption rate of 15 projects
per month. I expect the numbers to continue a steady, linear climb as
developers begin to realize that the AGPL is the “copyleft of the
Cloud”.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/12/01/agpl-dfsg-free.html

Late last week, the FTP Masters of Debian — who, absent a vote of
the Debian developers, make all licensing decisions —
posted
their ruling that AGPLv3 is DFSG-Free. I was glad to see this issue
was finally resolved after months of confusion;
the AGPLv3
is now approved by all known FLOSS licensing ruling bodies (FSF, OSI,
and Debian).

It was somewhat fitting that the AGPLv3 was approved by Debian within a
week of the one year anniversary
of AGPLv3’s
release. This year of AGPLv3 has shown very rapid adoption of the
AGPL. Even conservative numbers show an adoption rate of 15 projects
per month. I expect the numbers to continue a steady, linear climb as
developers begin to realize that the AGPL is the “copyleft of the
Cloud”.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2008/12/01/agpl-dfsg-free.html

Late last week, the FTP Masters of Debian — who, absent a vote of
the Debian developers, make all licensing decisions —
posted
their ruling that AGPLv3 is DFSG-Free. I was glad to see this issue
was finally resolved after months of confusion;
the AGPLv3
is now approved by all known FLOSS licensing ruling bodies (FSF, OSI,
and Debian).

It was somewhat fitting that the AGPLv3 was approved by Debian within a
week of the one year anniversary
of AGPLv3’s
release. This year of AGPLv3 has shown very rapid adoption of the
AGPL. Even conservative numbers show an adoption rate of 15 projects
per month. I expect the numbers to continue a steady, linear climb as
developers begin to realize that the AGPL is the “copyleft of the
Cloud”.