[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:36:36 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> said: 

> 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.

        Err, selecting free software has mostly also been a matter of
 belief  that freedom of information and software is a worthwhile
 goal, and that  the synergy and explosion of stabding on shoulders of
 giants phenomena is worthwhile, and the returns of such a increase in
 cooperation are real -- and to be striven for.

        I personally have only exploited but a fraction of the free
  software that is out there, but still believe that  I, and others
  benerift, even if I personally have not been an instrument in all
  such cases.

        I am sorry to see you dismiss this as mere ideology; and I am
 sorry that your imagination has not seen what I see.

>> >         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.

        Pot. Kettle. insults. ideology.

        I do stand behind my words; here are, chastizing the GFDL for
 not being free, standing on the verge of the rowing GNU
 documentation out of Debian, and yet, we blithely, though the
 instrumentation of an annual Debian Developer conference, accept any
 non-free license there is, as long as it makes "our" conference a

        I leave it to the readers to determine if this is, or is not,
 hypocrisy . 


My BIOLOGICAL ALARM CLOCK just went off ... It has noiseless DOZE
FUNCTION and full kitchen!!
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: