Re: Re: License/Use settings

On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 23:23, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> So here is my suggestion of categories:

I agree that having only four or five options is ideal from a "keep it
simple" point of view. And if we are targetting end-users (/corporates)
then you probably want it relatively simple.

> OSI-Approved:  Programs with OSI-approved license and no known patent
>   related issues.

> FREE:  Programs which satisfy the criteria of OSI's "open source
>   definition" and FSF's "free software definition".

> SOURCE_AVAILABLE: Anything the source is provided for.

I'd call this category PROPRIETARY_WITH_SOURCE.

> ANYTHING_GOES: All licenses.  Source might be closed, or require
>   special hoops to obtain.

I'd call this last category PROPRIETARY_NO_SOURCE.

I think those names convery more clearly the nature of the software in
those categories, and also shows to the user that they are similar in
categories, other than with one, source is available. I think that there
is enough confusion around Open Source ("source available") vs.
OSI_Approved vs. FSF_Approved vs DFSG (debian free software guidelines),
that we should try to not add to that confusion.

There is probably the possibility that OSI_APPROVED and FREE will get
confused. There should perhaps be URLs to the definitions presented when
the user has to make a choice, or a "more info" button so that they can
read immediately and make an informed choice.

> This set of categories has the nice property that OSI-Approved is
> a subset of FREE

This statement would be correct if category FREE read osi-approved _OR_
fsf-approved. Perhaps you intended it to read "packages that satisfy A,
as well as packages that satisfy B"?

Perhaps it would be better to have checkboxes against "osi approved",
"fsf approved", "proprietary with source", "proprietary".

I actually think that technically fsf approved is a subset of osi
approved. But since those definitions may change over time, there's not
much point worrying about what is a subset of what. Just provide
checkboxes and let the user decide.

Personally, I'd be happy with dfsg-approved. I would like that as an
option because I've already put the effort into reading (in detail) what
dfsg compliant means, and if you ask me I couldn't remember the details,
but I know I made that decision a few years ago, and so it would be an
effort for me to make a new decision (if I want to be fully informed
about that decision). Why put such users through that? Perhaps there
could be an "advanced" button which provides such additional options
(eg. DFSG compliant", BSD compliant, whatever options the community
feels strongly enough about).

To me, that would be pretty "slick"/professional, as it is catering to
my needs and understanding of the effort that is otherwise being asked
of me.

> > I'd personally suggest a default of SOURCE_AVAILABLE, from a usability
> > perspective, but wouldn't object too strongly to a default setting of
> > FREE, so that those who want to claim the moral high ground, but not have
> > to put in any of the intellectual effort could still do so.
> 
> I'd argue that *if* there has to be a default, it should be FREE
> instead of SOURCE_AVAILABLE in order to avoid encouraging the
> creation of non-free source-available programs which are wrongly
> marketed as "open source".

I agree with this. So would you make the default osi, fsf, dfsg, bsd or
X-based free? :)

cheers
zen

-- 
Mr Zenaan Harkness
Mobile: +61 (0)412 166 990  Email: [email protected]
Please respect the confidentiality of this email.