Re: Licenses for DebConf6
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 02:39:52 +0100, Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> said:
> Scripsit Francesco Poli <frx@winstonsmith.info>
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:45:35 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
>>> The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out
>>> copyright _transfer_. However, in practice they will usually
>>> accept a non-exclusive license to print and distribute unmodified
>>> copies. I think it would be sad if Debconf required more than
>>> that.
>> Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's
>> distributable.
> As does Debian. We just label the non-free software such that users
> have an easy way to be sure that they are not using it.
Hmm. Not as part of Debian. Not on a CD. Indeed, nothing
officially part of Debian can even depend on such non-free materiel.
I think if the non-free GR were to be re-raised, I for one
have changed my mid and would want Debian to not host the non-free
packages; since I see I was wrong about things being clear about what
is or is not part of the Debian OS.
>> I would like to see more authors licensing in a DFSG-free manner
>> because I want more freedom for the end-users
> It's your right to want that, and you are free to encourage authors
> to do so. But that is something different from saying that papers
> with a cogent technical contribution should be rejected from a
> conference simply because their licensing does not live up to your
> ideals.
Well, a conference that is not affiliated with Debian, such a
requirement is not tenable, that is true. But if such a conference
uses the Debian trademark, we can indeed ask that our core values,
as enshrined in our social contract, be respected.
If there is ever a collection of papers that appear to be a
product of the Debian project, or seem to be endorsed by it, I suspect
we can ask for the spirit of the social contract be not blatantly
violated.
If we are talking about organizations unconnected to Debian, or
ones not using our Mark, than we have no leg to stand on. In that
case, this thread is off topic here.
> If there's a lack of documentation, by all means encourage people to
> write some free documentation. However, I do not think that is
> furthered in particular by rejecting papers at at conference.
>> Oh my goodness, I'm explaining code reuse and the strengths of free
>> software on _two_ Debian mailing lists! :-|
> We are talking about conference papers. Not code, not software, not
> documentation to be distributed in main.
Why should software bits that represent papers be treated any
differently from software bits that represent documentation or
software bits that represent code? I have failed to find a rationale
for such a distinction.
> They do not mean that we _require_ of anybody that they license
> their software under a DFSG-free license. Our position is that
> software in this world exists already and already has whatever
> license its author is willing to grant. If the license is DFSG-free
> it is great, and it can go into main. If it is not, it can
> (sometimes, guided by purely practical considerations) be
> distributed in non-free.
Wong. We say that such code may go into Debian if and only if
the license is DFSG free.
manoj
--
Fat Liberation: because a waist is a terrible thing to mind.
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: