On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:49:21AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > It's not all that unusual for conferences to require that the material > submitted for the conference be licensed in a specific manner; OTOH, conferences usually ask for the minimal permission they actually need to do their job. > if you > plan on presenting, some DFSG free license of the material you present > should be expected so portions of the work can be utilized in main or > otherwise distributed by Debian if desired. Debian distributes lots of things that aren't DFSG-free -- not only stuff in non-free, but also stuff on lists.debian.org (like this thread), stuff on bugs.debian.org, and stuff on planet.debian.org. > [If this poses a > problem,[1] you always have the option of not presenting, or > presenting your work in an informal session.] *sigh* Does this really have to devolve to "if you don't like it, go away" already? How about showing your potential speakers enough courtesy to at least consider their concerns, and enough respect to believe that they're scrupulous enough that they'll do the right thing even without being forced? Or, for that matter, having the flexibility to accept that sometimes the right thing changes depending on the situation? > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Of course, "DFSG-free" isn't all the dc6 organisers are insisting > > on, but the right to MIT/X11 recordings of presentations too -- not > > even giving presenters the option to copyleft the recording of their > > presentation for some reason. > This is primarily pragmatic, since there's no clear consensus on what > the prefered form for modification for a video is, or even what it > means to copyleft a video. Huh? Copyleft == you can't restrict other people from redistributing and making further modifications. As an example: someone downloads the debconf presentations, culls various tidbits from them and puts them together in a "dos and don'ts of technical presentations", then sells the new video for $5 a pop online, and refuses to allow people who purchase it to modify or redistribute it. Example copyleft licenses for videos include the CC ShareAlike licenses, the GFDL, the OPL, and the GPL. TTBOMK, of those, only the GPL talks about "preferred form for modification". Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature