Re: [DotGNU]Proposal for a introspector API into free software developmenttoolchain

[David Sugar <dyfet at ostel dot com>]

I do happen to believe there may be places and situations where new 
licensing needs to be explored.  For example we have the FDL for 
documentation, which has different issues to address than software, and 
there has been some efforts made to extend the GPL  to be workable with 
web services where no code is "distributed" in the classical sense. 
However, all such efforts must be undertaken with an extreme measure of 
caution.  The GPL itself is founded on a very solid and clever insight 
on copyright law that is unassailable.  Many other licenses make the 
mistake of assuming how they think the law should operate rather than 
how it actually does.  That is very easy trap to fall into and one we 
cannot afford to make in the GNU project.  That being said, I do not 
discourage you at all from proposing a "GNU" or otherwise Free Software  
"infrastructure license", or to make a case why we may need such a 
seperate license, as it may well be that we might, but I do encourage a 
great deal of review of the question and the legal foundations of any 
specific license proposal before it is considered for actual use.

S11001001 wrote:


> Hate to admit it, but this is way over my head. It is highly probable 
> that the same goes for some lurkers here [on DotGNU], so....(insert 
> proper request here)
>
> BTW, would this follow the "Modest Proposal for a GNU infrastructure 
> license"?