[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (re-)evaluation of

From: Richard Stallman
Subject: Re: (re-)evaluation of
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 01:36:28 -0400

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > the norm is simply a 'drop-down' option selector, with terse
  > labels: [ 'BSD', 'MIT', 'GPL3', 'None', .... ] - the only
  > priority, which anyone may interpret from it, is the vertical
  > order of the options

That is very bad presentation of the licensing options.
We should give that repo a bad mark.

The C options say nothing about it.  Of the B options,
only these two seem to come near it,

    <li id="B2"><p>Does not encourage bad licensing practices (no
        license, unclear licensing, GPL N only).

    <li id="B3"><p>Does not recommend nonfree licenses for works of
        practical use.  <strong>(B3)</strong></p></li>

but neither of them addresses this point.

I think I took for granted that forges would comment on licensing
options, not merely list them.

Maybe it needs B1.9: Explains each of the licensing options,
distinguishing between GNU 2 only and GPL 2-or-later
and  between GNU 3 only and GPL 3-or-later.  Makes recommendations
about whether and when to use each option.

  > the options are presented once, upon new repo instantiation; and
  > the result is only to initialize the new repo with a license
  > file and an empty README

Perhaos we need an A+ option for
  Helps or reminds users to put license notice in their source files
  to go with whatever license they have chosen.


Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (
Founder, Free Software Foundation (
Internet Hall-of-Famer (

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]