> Ok I will participate with the website ML, and I understand about the > FSF level of requriement is not acceptable. However I will suggest to > take some steps to get the upper hand by recomending this changes: > - Name the category as "Free" -- not by license--. Free implies that > we are providing a Free only listing > - Make the "Free" option by default > - Have a non-free category
Extensions already have field "License" which is Opensource for free software. IMHO, it'll be enough to add convenient filtering by this field for those who needs it > > I get this feeling that we are not doing it because FSF came through > out of nowhere and wanted to implement their options upon us. But I > see FSF as any other contributor, and this things really make us > better. I do agree sometime FSF becomes inflexible, however we have > the choice to be as free as possible, and is always the best option. > By making it easy to be "free" and by default we can strengthen our > position with our users without alienating our other users that will > use proprietary extensions. > > I don't think that most proprietary developers will argue against > being listed under a non-free category. > -- Regards, Konstantin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@marketing.openoffice.org
