Began CommunityHealth UseCase, focusing first on license choice.

ExistingProjects/EvaluationTemplate.mdwn

@@ -64,3 +64,7 @@ data does, so I think it's tough to do it as a list of questions.
 
 FIXME: This is assessment of what the API for storing the accounting data
 does, so I think it's tough to do it as a list of questions.
+
+### Evaluation of the [[Community Health|USeCases/CommunityHealth]]
+- Is the [[license both determined as Free Software by FSF and OSI-approved|USeCases/CommunityHealth#license-approved]]?
+- Is the [[license GPL-compatible||USeCases/CommunityHealth#gpl-compatible]]?

UseCases.mdwn

@@ -36,3 +36,4 @@ criteria in evaluating ExistingProjects, then please make sure to update the
 
 - [[Reading and Reporting API|UseCases/ReadingAPI]]
 - [[Storage API|UseCases/StorageAPI]]
+- [[Health Assessment of the Development Community|UseCases/CommunityHealth]]

UseCases/CommunityHealth.mdwn

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+# Health of the Development Community
+
+## Good License Choice
+
+<a id="license-approved"></a>
+Obviously, code that's not under a license that is both
+[OSI approved](http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical) and is not
+[approved by FSF as a Free Software license](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses)
+is completely useless to us.
+
+<a id="gpl-compatible"></a>
+It would also be quite preferable if the code were under a
+[a license that FSF has determined is GPL-compatible](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses),
+so that code from GPL'd projects can be easily shared and GPL'd applications
+can be built on top of anything we build.  Code not under a GPL-compatible
+license would face a high burden (i.e., the code would really have to be
+absolutely wonderful in all other respects) to dictate such a license choice.
+