On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote: > 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. Often; but they're not mutually exclusive. [At least in the academic world, it's not all that unusual for publishers to require a non-exclusive, unlimited copyright license to the work; I think a requirement that material be DFSG free is substantially more reasonable than that, and better aligned with the goals of debconf.] > > 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. Those examples are primarily a case of not being able to do better and still function; here I believe we can do better, and therefore should. > > [If this poses a problem,[1] you always have the option of not > > presenting, or presenting your work in an informal session.] > > Does this really have to devolve to "if you don't like it, go away" > already? It was merely a statement that no one is forcing anyone to license their works in a particular manner, merely that the organizers (which to avoid confusion, doesn't include me) of the conference determine what the minimal set of permisions they need to do their jobs is. [Not that you should take your ball and go home.[1] ;-)] > How about showing your potential speakers enough courtesy to at > least consider their concerns, I assume that's what is being done here... correct me if I'm wrong. > and enough respect to believe that they're scrupulous enough that > they'll do the right thing even without being forced? I assume that the right thing is having the works licensed under a DFSG free license; granted, we've disagreed on numerous occasions whether that truly is the right thing or not... > Huh? Copyleft == you can't restrict other people from redistributing > and making further modifications. I tend lump both legal and technical means of restriction together, so I automatically assume that copyleft implies the distribution of the prefered form for modification; in any case, dealing with the licenses below will make the distribution of the DVDs containing the talks a bit more difficult... as the people actually making the recording and digitizing it are doing the majority of the work for it, presumably they are in the best position to determine the licences for the recording. Don Armstrong 1: At least, not until I kick it over the fence for you. ;-) -- <Clint> why the hell does kernel-source-2.6.3 depend on xfree86-common? <infinity> It... Doesn't? <Clint> good point http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature