sorry for replying to this only today. i had been busy preparing for a talk i was giving yesterday at a conf. * Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> [2005-11-10 01:08:49]: > > given your knowledge level of how debconf intents to handle > > things and the way you escalate this issue gives me the idea that > > you mainly want to raise a stink and create unrest. > > First of all, it is *not at all* my intention to raise stinks or create > unrest. > If I gave the impression of being rude, I apologize: I didn't want to. > I am not an English native speaker, hence I may have chosen the wrong > words or style when drafting my message; moreover I may have > misunderstood something when reading the C4P (Call For Papers). no, you could have asked on the debconf6-team mailinglist, for example. trying to get the largest possible audience by sending this to d-d and d-l is both addressing the wrong audience and trying to raising a stink. > I visited http://debconf.org/ and failed to find any other relevant > information about paper licensing, apart from the C4P itself. > If you can point me to some URL where I can get first-hand info about > how DebConf organizers plan to handle this kind of things, I would > appreciate it. you could have look at the archives of the debconf6-team mailinglist where in http://liw.iki.fi/lists/debconf6-team@lists.debconf.org/msg00169.html it says "btw, the licence situation (of the talks and videos) will be taken care of in COMAS (our conference management system) directly, something like "people who'll commit talks will have to choose a (proper) licence at commit time"." the current plan is to have a drop down menu where people can choose the license they want, very much like when they chose a license for an alioth project. > I think you are involved (!) and I did raise this issue with you > privately (end of last August), yes, then you complained about the way the license and distribution of the talks had been handled, that they were not available from the debconf.org server any more (due to a breakin). That is how i perceived it, at least. you did not make any constructive suggestions at any point. (and how could you, only refering to debconf5?) > I really appreciate your efforts to organize the best conference you > can. I really *love* the idea of a conference entirely dedicated to > Debian, to be held in a different place each time. > 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. do we limit personal freedom of speakers in favour of our own, when we prescribe a license? debconf is about exchange of ideas (among others). will we only permit ideas from people that already share out view of DFSG-free? > > You might also think about the organizers options when a speaker > > surprisingly NOT picks a DFSG free license, > > If the rules mandate a DFSG-free license (as I suggest), I think > the only option for the organizers is to not include the > paper/presentation/handout in the conference proceedings and to not > distribute it through the conference website, until the licensing issue > is solved. > Just like a Debian package doesn't enter main, until it meets Policy > requirements (DFSG-freeness being one of them). yes, and i guess it will have consequences when speakers choose a non-free lisenese for their talk. It will reduce their chances to get a slot. > > or declares before the audience that his > > talk must not be distributed. > > In that case the talk cannot be distributed through the conference > website or in the proceedings. > But this holds even if you do not mandate a DFSG-free license. > > Actually the C4P already requires some permissions from the authors: the point is that the authors can violate the (informal) agreement given on the website and in a last minute action deliver a talk with an other license then aggreed uppon. We (the lynch mob) could wrestle down the speaker, beat her up, smash her notebook and carry her outside for further treatment, i guess. or something similar. (c: (attention! joke!) > | Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers, > | presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual materials > | used in conjunction with the presentation. > > Hence, you already have to plan what to do, when an author does not > fulfill the C4P requirements. > Correct me, if I'm wrong. and so we do (c: they are not very specific, so far, though.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature