Talk:Consumerium governance: Difference between revisions
(I don't think revoking GPL is possible) |
(hmm) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I don't thinkone can change the license from [[GPL]] to something else. Instead the holder of copyright (whoever that is?) can place the code under other licenses, giving the licensee options on under which license s/he aquires the code. [[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 20:07 Jun 19, 2003 (EEST) | I don't thinkone can change the license from [[GPL]] to something else. Instead the holder of copyright (whoever that is?) can place the code under other licenses, giving the licensee options on under which license s/he aquires the code. [[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 20:07 Jun 19, 2003 (EEST) | ||
:Yes. But "whoever that is" is important. Open-source "reputation systems" like [http://advogato.org Advogato] carefully track who contributed what. On a large open wiki, that's impossible, with all the anonymous, pseudonymous, and [[troll]] content. This is more a problem for documentation than code although anonymous bug fixes will be more and more possible as testing tools and virus tests get better. | |||
:The point of a [[Consumerium Governance Organisation]] would be to become the "[[holder of copyright]]", although it would have heavy limits on what it can do, and would have procedures for forking off a new project even, just to keep that within the scope of control. One way to think of this is that [[faction]] opinions should be so well supported within Consumerium they don't need to go elsewhere, or start anything new. But if they are about to do so, it's better to know exactly when and how, and make sure they don't create competition say for access to the hardware in the stores, or license trouble for the data used. Like, part of agreeing to fork data or criteria for buying or notifying users must be NOT to try to interfere with or hack the ports original Consumerium uses on the devices. You want them at least to agree to go to a new port number!! | |||
----------- | |||
This is definitely a page that needs work. Until [[Consumerium:We]] have some idea what [[Consumerium governance]] does and does not involve, and what it's priorities are, fat chance working out [[protocol]]s for the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] to maintain, and NO chance of ever having [[Transparent Consumerium]] that is ONLY those protocols. Hmm. | |||
Latest revision as of 23:48, 25 January 2005
I don't thinkone can change the license from GPL to something else. Instead the holder of copyright (whoever that is?) can place the code under other licenses, giving the licensee options on under which license s/he aquires the code. Juxo 20:07 Jun 19, 2003 (EEST)
- Yes. But "whoever that is" is important. Open-source "reputation systems" like Advogato carefully track who contributed what. On a large open wiki, that's impossible, with all the anonymous, pseudonymous, and troll content. This is more a problem for documentation than code although anonymous bug fixes will be more and more possible as testing tools and virus tests get better.
- The point of a Consumerium Governance Organisation would be to become the "holder of copyright", although it would have heavy limits on what it can do, and would have procedures for forking off a new project even, just to keep that within the scope of control. One way to think of this is that faction opinions should be so well supported within Consumerium they don't need to go elsewhere, or start anything new. But if they are about to do so, it's better to know exactly when and how, and make sure they don't create competition say for access to the hardware in the stores, or license trouble for the data used. Like, part of agreeing to fork data or criteria for buying or notifying users must be NOT to try to interfere with or hack the ports original Consumerium uses on the devices. You want them at least to agree to go to a new port number!!
This is definitely a page that needs work. Until Consumerium:We have some idea what Consumerium governance does and does not involve, and what it's priorities are, fat chance working out protocols for the Consumerium Governance Organization to maintain, and NO chance of ever having Transparent Consumerium that is ONLY those protocols. Hmm.