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

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

Scripsit David Nusinow <david_nusinow@verizon.net>

> From reading the responses from Andreas, rather than people trying poorly
> to interpret him, it's pretty apparent that they'll be giving freely
> licensed talks a greater weight than non-free ones. They're also going to
> make it easy to choose a free license from their interface. Furthermore, it
> implies a very strong desire to have freely licensed materials

All of that is nice and well, but it does not change the fact that a
DSFG-free license is not *required*.

> Hopefully if you don't like the way they run the conference
> you'll get involved in the future and help to make it even better.

I am perfectly happy with the way the conference is being run. I am
opposing those people who want the organisers to change the way it is
being run, such that DFSG-nonfree papers will be thrown out simply
because of the licensing.

Henning Makholm       "It was intended to compile from some approximation to
                 the M-notation, but the M-notation was never fully defined,
                because representing LISP functions by LISP lists became the
 dominant programming language when the interpreter later became available."

Reply to: