Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[Robert Call]

> "Jason Self" <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Riley Baird said:
>>> is a restriction
>>
>> The only way I can think of it to consider is a restriction is if
>> Tivoization were considered a legitimate activity to begin with.
>>
>> Framing copyleft as a "restriction" is not a good idea. This goes back
>> to what John said.
>>
>> As an example, it's not as if TiVo Inc. "can't" use GPLv3 stuff or
>> that they the license somehow "restricts" them from doing so. Rather,
>> they can and should use it (everyone should.) They just need to pass
>> on those same freedoms to others.
>>
>> It's probably better to position/frame the GPL and copyleft as
>> protecting software freedom rather than "restricting" it.
>
> Right, and as "preventing others from restricting access to your
> software".
>
> Given only one tag line to describe the GPL, "I care about sharing
> improvements" is really not it. Probably something more like "I want my
> software to always be free for everyone".
>
> Plus, the GPL choice links to v2. It should link to v3.
>
> -john

While I don't like to see forks when we can avoid it, I think this would
be a good reason to fork.

In response to this, I'm starting a "Don't fork me on GitHub" campaign
(don't know how receptive it would be). An example is on the libreCMC
project page [1]. Note that we clearly state that the software does
not have other restrictions, but we do want to inform people that github
is not great for free software.

If anyone has some input, please feel free to share.

[1] libreCMC project page - http://librecmc.org/librecmc/index

-- 
Robert Call (Bob)
http://librecmc.org
FSF Member #8115