From: David Baron <davidbaron@ne...> - 2004-11-20 16:51:36
The question is, should we still stay associated with the FSF.
I think their licensing, politics and technical views are too limited for
this type of project.
My recommendation is that we drop the GPL go for a more flexible licensing
As for conduct, the discussion I had Alistair Y. Lewars was not flaming but
I find it very important that people can express their opinions, it's true
that personnal insults or threats are not acceptable but having personal
Developer, Network Administrator, Filmmaker
From: Jonathan Day [mailto:imipak@...]
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:30 AM
To: David Baron; 'Alistair Y. Lewars'
Subject: Project Charter
It looks as though I'm going to have to be blunt on this one. Simply put,
the Free Film Project has put forward charters to both Sourceforge and the
Free Software Foundation.
Both define the FFP as GNU projects in three seperate ways.
1. The software developed is entirely GPL or GPL compliant
2. The films produced with that software are entirely GPL or GPL compliant
3. The project agreed to adhere to any and all FSF policies governing what
could be considered a GNU project
A project can change charters, but no such discussion has taken place either
between members of (more
importantly) between admins and I sincerely doubt the FSF would agree to
continue recognition of the project if it switched to (primarily)
proprietary OS' and proprietary production software.
There is also a grave question as to whether the proprietary software
concerned would "taint" any license the Free Film Project distributed movies
under. Commercial software often places some restrictions on what can be
done with the output, and that is simply not compatible with the GPL.
Depending on the terms of the commercial license, it may also violate the
SourceForge Terms of Service, as binary output from commercial software is
often deemed to hold IP owned by the commercial software company.
Secondly, there is a matter of list etiquette. Flames, abusive behavior and
inflamatory language are not acceptable on this list and may violate
SourceForge code of conduct policies.
Freedom is often cited, but the reality is that only the US Government is
subject to the First Amendment.
No-one else. Freedom of speech cannot be limited by law (with certain
exceptions) but it can and is limited by the policies of any other
organization, inside or outside the US. SourceForge and the FFP are no
exceptions to this.
I do believe that some of the more "colorful"
personalities (Theo de Raadt of OpenBSD fame is a good
example) produce excellent software. As in the example, OpenBSD is an
amazing product. No doubt about it, and a lot of it has to do with the fire
of the personalities involved. Many successful projects are the products of
what are essentially fusions of a personality cult with fundamentalist
fervor, with the technical skills to back it all up.
This project was, is, and always will be, a cooperative. The mission, the
sense of adventure, comes from this project exploring territory nobody has
ever ventured into before. Explorers are a lot rarer than the
fire-and-brimstone types, and getting them to work together can be like
herding kittens. On the other hand, when it does pan out, they go further
than anyone else. There's no safety, no guarantees, but the rewards are
infinitely greater as a result.
I'm an explorer. This project is a project of exploration. Microsoft may ask
where you want to go today, but I believe if you know that, if you know the
results ahead of time, nobody gains from the going. A TV show doesn't get
better by being repeated. Why expect anything else to?
That is the spirit in which this project was put together, and the spirit in
which the charters were written. Like I said, this can be changed, but it
cannot be unilateral, and it must be recognized that affiliations may be
lost as a consequence.
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!