[copyleft-next] Re: HBR cure: Renaming and revising HBR, and some background on the history of HBR
On April 15, 2019 12:26:13 AM UTC, Mike Linksvayer <ml(a)gondwanaland.com> wrote:
On the whether 3 is "enforceable": the only invocations of
HBR I've ever
seen have been Fontana and (mostly) Kuhn complying voluntarily. [...]
As to whether 3 grants leaders control of a project's narrative,
perhaps it
does, but if you want to view ironically, I'd say HB "cures" give
participants the opportunity to tout their self-importance and insider
status. Selecting for this sort of insider seems preferable to selecting
for backroom dealing, but perhaps that is an old fashioned (pre-2016?)
evaluation.
You are assuming that the HBR prevents backroom dealing.
Obviously this would be nice and all but unfortunately it's just an illusion: since
there is literally no way of knowing if a backroom dealing of sort occurred, there is no
incemtive to avoid them. Also "cures" might be partial!
I think that documenting the reasoning behind a decision can be useful in the long term,
and an open government for copyleft-next is nice if that's what Fomtana want.
But as I said before I prefer to discuss and debate artifacts (be them softwares or
licenses) not good looking intentions.
This is how Science and Philosophy evolved for centuries after all!
Open committees can be manipulated.
Good artifacts are much harder to beat.
So I prefer a competition of licenses (and of softwares) instead of a popularity contest
on how THE ONE LICENSE should be written.
Giacomo.