[Clo-devel] We're getting feedback!

[Stig E Sandoe]

Quoting Nikodemus Siivola (nikodemus at random-state.net):
| On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 05:16:03PM +0200, Stig E Sandoe wrote:
| 
| > | How about, at the "About this site": 
| > | 
| > |   "This site is currently paid for and maintained by
| > |   <insert-our-names-here>"
| > 
| > That would clarify things, and let users know who is providing the
| > service.  Openness is good. 
| 
| Do you think the simple name-list is sufficent, or should it elaborate
| on the backgound and current working order?

I'm not sure how this is organised to be honest.  If it is a volunteer
project (not sponsored) I'd say that names, current job, and
roughly what the person does on cl.net is informative.  If a company
is providing network, hardware, etc I think it's good to mention it. 

After all, cl.net is also about people entrusting you with their
projects which they spend a lot of time on, so openness is a good way
to build trust.  Some of us have used sourceforge and despite services
not always being ideal, they've built up trust over time.  cl.net is a
good idea and a promising hosting, but you will also need to build up
trust in the lisp-community.  Openness and e.g providing a good
CCLAN-service is a great way to start, imho. 

| > | > - What open source/free projects can get hosting?  DFSG?  Wider than
| > | > DFSG?  Stricter than DFSG? 'Hosting decisions are made on case-by-case
| > | > basis.' is fine, but some examples of accepted licences would be nice.
| > | 
| > | I think DFSG sounds reasonable.  Any reason not to restrict it to DFSG?
| > 
| > DFSG is fairly well-known and respected. 
| 
| I think we can mention DSFG, with some caveats:
| 
|  * Licenses (such as LGPL) invoking distiction between dynamic and
|    static linking are generally horribly confusing when confronted
|    with Common Lisp way of loading code.
| 
|  * The same "horribly confusing" applies to LLGPL as well, with the
|    addition the FSF seems to have trouble with the prelude.
|
|  * We reserve the right to host non-DSFG free projects if we feel that
|    it is appropriate. Examples include projects for which non-DSFG license
|    is more suitable, and possible sponsorship.

I think your choice of words (e.g 'horribly confusing') is a bit
offputting, maybe link to and explain why DFSG is the standard
guideline while you open up for any other projects on a case-by-case
basis (examples are good).  Then maybe have an informative "be aware
of" section with a description of the possible problems with LGPL and
Lisp.  LGPL is DFSG-compliant and as such should be no more problem
than GPL.  

| Naturally, this would not apply to any cclan mirror that we may host,
| or to any cclan upload mechanism we may provide: just to "normal"
| project hosting, which may or may not include the cclan upload
| facility.

Right. 
 
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stig Erik Sandoe     stig at ii.uib.no    http://www.ii.uib.no/~stig/