On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 05:28:04PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:30:52 -0600 Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:46:24 +1000, Anthony Towns > > <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> said: > > > I don't believe I've seen anyone debate my use of the (aiui) > > > non-DFSG-free CC ShareAlike/Attrib clause on my debbugs paper this > > > year. > > I was not aware that you were soliciting opinions. If you > > are, I find it deplorable. I saw no benefit in sharing my opinion > > after the fact, but am perfectly willing to do so if you think my > > rectitude was implicit approval. > I did it, last july on debian-legal[1]. > I was willing to get in touch with you (=Anthony) and try to convince > you to relicense the paper in a DFSG-free manner, but haven't yet found > the time to do so... Implicit in both your responses is that neither of you have any actual reason to do so, other than ideology -- there's nothing you actually seem to be itching to do that warrants a different license to the one I used. > > Any advocacy of the DFSG by an organization that happily > > accepts non-free licenses when it is convenient, smacks so much of > > hypocrisy to be unpersuasive. But that is just my opinion. > It's my opinion, as well. And I guess it's not surprising that that means the resultant "persuasion" has to be little more than insults. > That is exactly what I meant when I talked about acting "consistently > with our philosophy" in my reply[2] to Andreas Schuldei (earlier in this > thread). Personally, my philosophy is that as many people as possible should be encouraged to contribute to software, and free licensing (and thus the DFSG) is an important factor in that. Another important factor is treating contributors with courtesy and respect -- which at least means not calling them hypocrites, and at best means trusting them to make their own decisions on licensing. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature