After long discussions and (so far) unsuccessful attempts to ban proprietary software in Minetest, I have come to a different approach.
First, since non-free mods are allowed (namely, licenses that violate freedom 0), that effectively means that free software and proprietary software are mixed in Mod/Game Releases.
This is bad. Non-free things should never be mixed with free things. We should not give people the impression that we treat proprietary things as equally valid as free things.
But currently, under the policies we have is that some proprietary things are treated equally well as free things. This just feels wrong.
The rules should be designed in a way that it should be made very obvious that they are NOT the preferred option. The user interfaces should also draw a CLEAR distinction between free and non-free. The user should never have the impression that we treat proprietary things as equally valid.
The big underlying idea behind this proposal is “freedom by default”.
So, this thing is more like a collection of suggestions regarding on how we treat non-free things in this community. It's not set in stone.
But now for the actual list:
------------------------------------------------
BEGIN OF SUGGESTION
First, here are two rules I propose to be added for the forum policy:
- Each non-free mod/game must have the tag “[nonfree]” in its title, after the first tag. This rule shall apply retroactively
- Free submissions are given priority for approval (move thread into Releases). Non-free things will not be approved before a waiting period of 1 month after the request was posted
Example for non-free title:
For the Content DB, I propose the following design changes:[Mod] [nonfree] Mod of the Devil [6.6.6] [muhaha]
- Non-free things are not visible in lists by default, unless the user explicitly enables it
- Non-free things are listed lower than all free mods in Content DB
- Non-free things will never be displayed on the front page, highlighted, advertised or otherwise promoted in any way
- Non-free things don't have a screenshot visible in the list of things, just the name. The screenshot is only visible when viewing the full page
- Same approval waiting time applies as for forum policy above
- Display a warning if a modder is about to submit a non-free mod. Educate them briefly about potential (undesired) consequences
- Remove the option for “other” licenses
- Remove GPLv2.1, this license does not exist!
- Add GPLv2
END OF SUGGESTION
------------------------
RATIONALES:
This post is a huge compromise. I have failed in convincing people to ban all proprietary software. So this is a different approach. It still kinda allows non-free, but free is now given a clear preferential treatment.
The nonfree tag is just an idea to allow easy filtering by web services like Krock's Mod Search.
The filtering of non-free by default is to protect users from accidentally installing non-free. Especially in a project like Minetest which prides itself on the values of freedom it is a dangerous trap in clicking through the Content DB, assuming that everything here is free.
The idea I want to push here is “freedom by default”. If we had not such an option, users would also always have to check the license first because any mod might be non-free. This can be seriously frustrating for a community which is supposed to be all-free.
Some of the ideas are … yes … “punishments”. If you really want non-free, it should sting a bit. That's by design. :-) You can count yourself lucky we are hosting your non-free thing in the first place, and that even fully free of charge, mind you.
The rest is basically just informational and clearer visual separation.
The “Other” option for licenses in Content DB is a really bad idea, this just encourages license proliferation which we should absolutey avoid. We have just too freaking many licenses! New licenses should only be added to the drop-down list after a MANUAL request + approval of that license. Another problem is that it demands from the submitter to rate whether their “other” license is free or non-free, but only few people are license nerds so people would classify their license wrongly.
So. All of this is open to debate. Some of my points might be very controversial while others I believe are very uncontroversial. If you have your own comments about policy regaring on how we treat non-free, please do post them. :-)
----------------
Final note: I would still prefer it more if all proprietary software is not permitted in Mod/Game Releases in the first place, and not just some selected forms of proprietary software. I have NOT given up this fight either. I have explained the reasons for this in great length elsewhere, but to summarize, my main reason is that non-free is not simply not benefitial to our community.