Re: Debian Day
I am disappointed that people seem to have misunderstood my intent.
I asked you:
1. to be cautious about "free culture"; and
2. to consider inviting CC to spend time working towards a CC that
follows DFSG, as well as any other activity.
I did not suggest that you should straight exclude them, but I
feel some replies have built and bashed that straw man too much.
I would like comments on my request, not the imagined.
Andreas Schuldei <andreas@schuldei.org> wrote:
> [parents and apple pie] Two years ago We extended an
> invitation to RMS, when the DFSG vs GFDL discussion was quite
> heated. (Unfortunatly he perceived us as a "hostile audience"
> and declined.) We achived no progress via mail since then on that
> front. Perhaps we can do better with the CC people?
I hope so and I hope that you will support my suggestion
of inviting CC to spend time working on it at debconf5.
Just out of interest, what was the offer made to RMS? Even so,
I don't think you can really generalise from RMS and FSF to CC.
Although there are some similarities, there are significant
differences, which is why I am hopeful for the Evan-led effort.
Mako is better placed than me to decide if that's right, though.
Fabian Fagerholm <fabbe@paniq.net> wrote:
> Debconf currently has a very visible list of sponsors who are permitted
> to advertise in different ways during both Debian Day and DebConf5. [...]
Are you inviting CC to sponsor? I thought they were being invited
as a non-debian speaker. I don't see those as the same situation.
> I concur with Andreas. Let's be hospitable and build bridges. [...]
Sure, be hospitable but let's be clear that we need to build
bridges, not ignore the chasm and hope it just goes away.
> Once we
> have established some trust at a personal level, we are more likely to
> gain mutual understanding of the critical issues. One way of opening
> these opportunities is to offer others a chance to speak to us. Only
> then can we expect to be allowed to speak to others.
I think there is a contradiction there: you say it's "one way" and
then you seem to suggest it's the "only" way. I think it's daft to
let them lecture "our audience" without at least trying to hold a
dialogue including our ambitions. Would you do that with a political
party that you disagree with? Please try to continue our dialogue.
"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar@debian.org> wrote:
> All the more reason to compare and contrast with the Debian approach don't
> you think?
Definitely! To offer the comparisons, illustrate the constrast and
justify it, Debian contributors need to be aware of the differences.
CC is a different because they seem to have a very powerful marketing
effort which I feel is taking priority above consultation that we
need to happen. I ask you to strengthen the consultation side.
> It's precisely because the term "free" is so ambiguous that
> the public need to be introduced to all the different viewpoints before we
> make the case for our particular viewpoint.
I don't agree with "so ambiguous" but there is a little ambiguity
which I feel is exploited by people who want different things, in
a "divide and conquer" attempt.
--
MJ Ray (slef), K.Lynn, England, email via http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
--
To unsubscribe, send mail to debconf5-team-unsubscribe@lists.debconf.org.
Reply to: