[Licom-l] Document review - motivation for the license change

Wed Mar 18 17:07:51 UTC 2009

2009/3/18 MF-Warburg <mfwarburg at googlemail.com>:
>
>>
>> The "Licensing update" page is short on motivations.  I think it needs a
>> strong early statement about why we're going to all this bother.
>
> I agree. Even the FAQ's first section and the vote header contain better
> motivations.
>>
>> It's not clear to me whether the text should have a neutral point of
>> view on whether to change the license, or whether it should advocate
>> for the change.  The Trustees clearly desired change of some sort,
>> and this change is what has been worked out so far.
>
> Since "as a group the committee is officially neutral" we should either have
> neutral pages or pages which contain reasons for and against the change; but
> as there might be nobody opposing the change who will give arguments, the
> pages could only include pro-changing statements (like the FAQ does yet).

For the most part, we should be able to state the implications in a
way that assists people in making a decision without advocating a
particular course of action.  I'd like to avoid thinking of it as
"pro-changing" or "anti-changing" as much as we can.  But it certainly
is worth expanding the discussion of what the licensing change would
mean.  I think adding a plain language "What will this mean?" section
directly following the [[Licensing Update]] introduction would be
worthwhile.

-Robert Rohde