Editing Talk:Licenses

* [[XML]] [[DTD]]s and [[Schema]]s are under [[GPL]] 

:This much is true.

or [[LGPL]] (more licensing schemes are considered) - again viral so that no [[bad copy problem|bad copies]] or [[self-interested fork]]s can be created without us stopping them.  

: What the ******* rubbish troll shit is this? Can you explain 142.177.X.X??[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 14:29 Jun 19, 2003 (EEST)

::Only the [[User:MotherOfTrolls]] can explain [[User:142.177.X.X]].  Until then, this one issue can be explained (below).  Trolls prefer however the term [[compost]] to "rubbish" or "shit", as their output is wholly [[organic]].

----
If you are considering any other license scheme than [[GPL]], which it said you were, [[LGPL]] must be the very next one considered, as it is viral but only to the library or schema level, i.e. does not infect anything that uses that code or library or schema at arm's length as long as it does not modify it.  [[GFDL]] is actually more like LGPL because GFDL has [[Invariant Section]]s and other [[Secondary Section]]s to which the normal viral rules don't apply.  These are like the calling code, or larger framework, that might rely on LGPL libraries.

As to the [[bad copy problem]] and [[self-interested fork]], any [[viral license]] does something to stop them, but GPL is focused only on self-interested forks, and as a result bad copies proliferate by people with altriusm as a motive (even worse!  800 versions of Linux - bleagh - all with no support).  And commercial ripoffs of ideas that first appeared in GPL are now happening but thankfully not succeeding.  LGPL tries to cut back on the ideology and encourage standardization, private and public and consortium use of the same tools, which is a better way to address bad-copy but of course now each bit of code using it can be a self-interested version that does little but exploit the LGPL resource.  This is [[open source]] and many think it's the worst of both worlds.  Consortia like [[W3]] or [[Java]] or [[X/Open]] or [[Apache]] or [[BSD]] or [[MySQL]] (at least originally when it had an "anyone but Microsoft" license) are better but harder-to-enforce attempts at providing incentives to cooperate and reasons not to create bad copies (public embarassment, as when Sun sued Microsoft) or self-interested forks (fear of lawsuits by the consortium) or either.  In Microsoft's case this usually bad copies AND self-interested forks (the secret of their success, get people hooked on the bugs and making money addressing the limits).

You can't just pick a license for a part of a project at random.  It ends up creating your success or failure.  So this needs a LOT more discussion and it would be a serious mistake to make license choices just to get listed at sourceforge.net faster.  There is talk of a [[Green Documentation License]] and [[Green Software License]] and even a [[Green Patent License]] in some circles.  Any one could use the material but if they use it in ways that damage health or the environment they owe money "back to the planet, plants, animals and humans" they damage with this technology.  We should not do anything that would make the people doing that, or even just talking about it, avoid Consumerium, calling it a "grey project" (GNU = grey in many minds, sees technology as a universal good, never a hazard, more roads more cars more computers more wires more robots etc.).

You need at least some statement of [[values]] or [[principles]] or an [[ethic]] of [[Consumerium:Itself]] before you go ahead with license choices, my untroll friend.  For example, if your statement is [[troll-friendly]], i.e. welcoming the anonymous, avoiding social reasons for cutting off instructional exchange, then you can expect more help than if you were asking for certifications of identity and fingerprints.  That said, some things are better not said or asked.

Only you can decide what they are.  But that is a policy decision, and if you make license decisions, that will set every contributor's right to say or ask what is said about, or done with, their contributions.  The license decision should actually be last, for anything other than what is already necessarily a part of research (like XML schemas).  You might want to add a note that the license under which material is available from consumerium may change and that one is giving up all rights except to participate in [[Consumerium governance]] however that works.  That would stall off the questions and make it possble to change licenses based on constraints identified specific to [[Consumerium:Itself]].  

It's not sourceforge nerds you need here, it's people from NGOs and charities and churches and institutes that study [[fair trade]], [[safe trade]], [[ethical investing]] and [[moral purchasing]] (especially).  Nerds want certainty, but those other groups want peace and justice.  Only you can decide who to satisfy. - trolls, eternal.
----
Ok... this is brutal copy-paste from work copyrighted by OSDN, but I guess I can count on this being "fair use"

'''Changing licenses (from terms of use @ sf.net)''

--snip--

You may select a different Open Source license for your project at a later date, so long as you have the legal capability to do so, your file release clearly relates this change, and your Trove categorization is updated appropriately. It should be noted that license changes are not retroactive (i.e. you may not change the licensing terms of materials you have already released under one Open Source license). 

--snip--