On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Richard Fontana
<fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote:
Sadly, to be candid, this is essentially why I set up the
fedorahosted
repository: I wanted to have a conventional free software mailing list
for this project. I tried setting up GNU Mailman but had various
difficulties making it work with a mail server, which I found quite
frustrating because it seems like the sort of thing that ought to be
simple. (In fact, because GNU Mailman is so widely used but also so
horribly designed, I'm thinking of writing my own mailing list manager
software which could then be licensed under copyleft-next.) I knew
that with git repository hosting at fedorahosted I could also get a
Mailman list thrown in.
Hell will freeze over in 2013 and Mailman3 will be released, before
you write your own mailing list manager software.
On 11/30/2012 03:19 PM, Ben Cotton wrote
> Is there a marketing aspect to be considered here? GitHub is pretty
> visible, and it might help draw more people to copyleft-next if it's
> hosted on GitHub.
Yes, that is that 'tertiary attractiveness' I referred to. That's the
primary benefit of GitHub (at this point in time).
copyleft-next is on github. People looking for projects there can find it.
I'm doubtful about the marketing benefit of embracing dominant
"social" sites beyond using as advertising and backup -- exhaust
recipients. That includes Github.
Github does have a much nicer UI and more features (apparently not
considered primary benefits above, but cited elsewhere in this
thread). But hell will freeze over and Gitorious will get substantial
improvements rolled out, if
http://blog.gitorious.org is believed.
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Richard Fontana
<fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote:
On 11/30/2012 11:50 AM, Joshua Gay wrote:
> Supporting github is a ruinous compromise because their policies work
> against our aims in the free software movement in the long term.
Actually, why is that so? (Serious question, perhaps there is some
information about GitHub policies that I am lacking.)
Github is proprietary software, thus unethical, but Joshua thought
"ruinous compromise" zinger more likely to convince and/or more
entertaining to read and/or write. Wild guess.
I don't think the mere fact that GitHub is a proprietary network
service (the core of Bradley's original objection to my use of it) is
in conflict with copyleft-next in some substantive sense. GPLv2 by
general understanding, and GPLv3 very explicitly, permit the
development of proprietary web applications out of adaptations of GPL
code. The issue I think Bradley was originally making was that the
future of strong copyleft licensing was likely to be one in which an
Affero-like requirement would be standard, or at least that it
*should* be standard, and it would therefore be unseemly to use a
proprietary network service in some major way in the drafting of such
a license given the existence of *presumed*-free (in a Franklin Street
Statement sense) alternatives (as well as known free alternatives).
Currently, copyleft-next has no Affero-like requirement, however.
While as I've previously noted I intend for there to be an Affero-like
flavor of copyleft-next I do not believe it should be a default provision.
I think Joshua was pointing out conflict with software freedom, not
copyleft-next in particular.
Mike