Re: Licenses for DebConf6
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:36:39 +0100, Andreas Schuldei
<andreas@debian.org> said:
> 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?
Err, Why not? Why are software bits that represent a talk at a
conference treated any differently than software bits that represent
documentation or software bits that represent executable software?
This line of argument you are using reminds me of the faction
of Alex Yukhimets. That was a vocal group of developers back in '96
and '97, and espoused the idea that in order to be the best OS ever,
and to maximize our utility to the users, we should not just permit
software from people that shared our views.
Indeed, the argument goes, in order to maximize utility to end
users (as opposed to middlemen repackaging our product), Debian
should be stuffed as full of software as possible, even if installing
a Debian OS was a slew of click through EULA's.
As any one connect with Debian would know (unless they have
been in a closet for the best part of the last decade), that we
rejected the view that sheer utilitarianism and convenience and even
participation from non-free software authors transcended our views and
commitment to the freedom of information, and software.
Would you care to expound why the same criteria that extends
to software bits representing documentation, code, executable, etc,
should not extend to the software bits representing conference
papers? How is the community not harmed by having non-free papers but
not harmed by having non-free code? non-free documentation?
manoj
--
You will win success in whatever calling you adopt.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: