Value: produce free software


I find it hard to engage myself on this platform on the values discussion because it seems the discussions loose focus. So I propose to try to discuss 1 specific value per topic.


librehosters is a network of cooperation and solidarity that uses free software

Proposed update:

librehosters is a network of cooperation and solidarity that uses and produces free software

This was part of the notes on LibreHosters kickoff meeting but was not included as a published value. For me it seems logical to add this one. Any different opinions?


I’m planning to bring this topic up in the next meeting. Is there support or objection for this proposed change to the values?

1 Like

I’m all for it! :electric_plug:

I’m all for it. It would clarify that the software repositories on should be released under free software licenses. Would it make sense to propose a graduated change such as:

  1. lightweight option: add and produces to the values statement.
  2. midweight option: lightweight option + public software on is released under a free software license.
  3. heavywight option: midweight option + copyleft software license (AGPL-3 or GPL-3)

Another detail that might or might not be related to this proposal is the change we adopted for the CPP document: “Librehosters form a network…**” instead of “Librehosters is a network…”.

My intention is to update this in the sentence of the frontpage and in the CPP document where the same sentence is copied from the frontpage.

In which document or location would this go?

I agree. Otherwise I propose to do that change on the frontpage after the CPP document approval.

1 Like

I guess we can as well have a MR to propose both changes, each in one commit, and see how it flies with the rest of the network. The proposed changes do not seem in contradiction with any of our members’ use in any way.

I don’t know. The licensing was suggested at some point, so it could as well become a topic of discussion.

I totally agree with this addition. Semantically I would prefer the word “create”, rather than “produce”, but I’m ok with either.

The former does not mean “contribute” :slight_smile:

If this is the option that ends up being chosen, personally, I would prefer copyleft licenses either not be defined or that MIT be included in the list. I like to use that and CC-BY for things I create :wink:

I support this, Webarchitects has the policy:

All software artefacts that the co-operative produces to be licensed under a FSF approved license.

But I wonder if this might need some clarification:

Do you mean all repositories or only ones used to host software projects?

Would this apply only to public repos or also to private ones?

For example in the case of an repo used for Ansible server configuration, this might use several public roles that are available under a Free software license but this might be a private repo as it might contain a list of user accounts or other private information — I’d argue that there would be no need to apply a license, of any kind, to a repo like this as it is not public.

Private repositories, in my understanding, are not released.

I guess all repositories, unless there’s a good reason not to. E.g., some repositories are used for internal matters, and may contain stuff that is not public. So, what I mean is: all public repositories. And I actually mean: all public repositories MUST be free software then.

I created the issue

And a Merge Request:


In my understanding neither “create” nor “produce” mean “contribute”.

I’m not in favor to replace “contribute” by “produce”.

So you’d go for “librehosters is a network of cooperation and solidarity that uses and contributes to free software” ?

I updated the MR to reflect this.

1 Like

Meeting Consensus

The CPP: Commitments, Policies and Processes document already mentions:

Therefore we don’t think it’s necessary to change the current wording.

If you have a strong objection, please reply here and join the public VoIP Gathering June 2019 tomorrow. We want to proceed with a release candidate tomorrow and will leave two weeks before finalizing version 1.0 of the CPP.

I closed the related MR but left the issue open. Unless strong objections come forward, I will close it tomorrow after the meeting.