Incorrect. The only part I'm specifically against is the section:
"The following OSI-approved licenses are popular, widely used, or have
strong communities:
[Insert the current list of popular/widely used/strong community
licenses]"
The reason I am opposed to this specific part is because in my opinion it
is PART OF the categorization issue. That itself cannot be made
"off-topic" unless someone is inclined to pull shenanigans.
I don't believe this to be the case but the inclusion of this section into
the proposal changes it from a simple small edit to the website into
something more, ESPECIALLY with the suggestion that the alphabetical list
could safely be done away with.
Given the issues with categorization the more neutral position would be to
ONLY retain the alphabetical list.
On 11/12/12 1:39 PM, "John Cowan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Tzeng, Nigel H. scripsit:
>
>> Frankly, if you aren't going to tackle the categorization issue then I'd
>> just update the links to insure they are accurate and leave it alone
>> because you're going to have contention over what belongs in that list
>>of
>> "popular, widely used or have strong communities" on the revised landing
>> page.
>
>Okay, you're against the change; the rest is off-topic for this thread.
>
>--
>BALIN FUNDINUL UZBAD KHAZADDUMU [email protected]
>BALIN SON OF FUNDIN LORD OF KHAZAD-DUM http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
>_______________________________________________
>License-discuss mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
