On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:25:11 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> > > > That's why I consider this issue as an important one: every DebConf > > is an event through which we get public attention and can thus > > spread our philosophy. The message really works better if we act > > consistently with our philosophy, IMHO. > > We do not have a philosophy that says that everything ought to be > DFSG-free. Do you think that a DebConf with more non-free papers and less DFSG-free ones would be a better conference? > > We have a philosophy that says that we only distribute things in main > if they are DFSG-free. That is a different thing. I know, but why do we accept things in main only if they are DFSG-free? For a dogmatic adherence to rules written by others? Or rather for reasons that we consider as good ones and that lead to the rules detailed in the SC? I think the same reasons lead to think that papers should be accepted at a DebConf only if they are DFSG-free. > > > Just like a Debian package doesn't enter main, until it meets Policy > > requirements (DFSG-freeness being one of them). > > DebConf papers will not be distributed in main. They are not, currently. That's why I said "like" and haven't filed any serious bug against the non-existent debconf-papers package... However, for the future, who knows? Someone could ITP some papers, maybe. At that point only the DFSG-free ones will be able to go in main. It will be better, if there are more of them. > > > Actually the C4P already requires some permissions from the authors: > > > | Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers, > > | presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual > > | materials used in conjunction with the presentation. > > And this requirement would be a no-op under your theory that a > DFSG-free license for the papers is required. Therefore I conclude > that your theory is wrong. Which theory? Mine is a suggestion, not a theory. If it's accepted, the C4P will obviously be modified and will drop the non-exclusive publication rights requirement (as it is actually implied by the DFSG-compliance requirement that I'm suggesting). > > > What I suggest is simply adding one further condition. > > For the record, I oppose this suggestion. I cannot fully understand why, but I take note of it. Are you concerned that less papers would be submitted to DebConf6 with such a rule? In case you are: why aren't you similarly concerned that less packages will be distributed in main, if we care "too much" about Freeness issues? -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) ...................................................................... Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpclKLdoG7JU.pgp
Description: PGP signature