Re: Licenses for DebConf6
Scripsit David Nusinow <david_nusinow@verizon.net>
> From reading the responses from Andreas, rather than people trying poorly
> to interpret him, it's pretty apparent that they'll be giving freely
> licensed talks a greater weight than non-free ones. They're also going to
> make it easy to choose a free license from their interface. Furthermore, it
> implies a very strong desire to have freely licensed materials
All of that is nice and well, but it does not change the fact that a
DSFG-free license is not *required*.
> Hopefully if you don't like the way they run the conference
> you'll get involved in the future and help to make it even better.
I am perfectly happy with the way the conference is being run. I am
opposing those people who want the organisers to change the way it is
being run, such that DFSG-nonfree papers will be thrown out simply
because of the licensing.
--
Henning Makholm "It was intended to compile from some approximation to
the M-notation, but the M-notation was never fully defined,
because representing LISP functions by LISP lists became the
dominant programming language when the interpreter later became available."
Reply to: