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

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:25:11 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:

> Scripsit Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>
> > That's why I consider this issue as an important one: every DebConf
> > is an event through which we get public attention and can thus
> > spread our philosophy. The message really works better if we act
> > consistently with our philosophy, IMHO.
> We do not have a philosophy that says that everything ought to be
> DFSG-free.

Do you think that a DebConf with more non-free papers and less DFSG-free
ones would be a better conference?

> We have a philosophy that says that we only distribute things in main
> if they are DFSG-free. That is a different thing.

I know, but why do we accept things in main only if they are DFSG-free?
For a dogmatic adherence to rules written by others?
Or rather for reasons that we consider as good ones and that lead to the
rules detailed in the SC?
I think the same reasons lead to think that papers should be accepted at
a DebConf only if they are DFSG-free.

> > Just like a Debian package doesn't enter main, until it meets Policy
> > requirements (DFSG-freeness being one of them).
> DebConf papers will not be distributed in main.

They are not, currently.
That's why I said "like" and haven't filed any serious bug against the
non-existent debconf-papers package...

However, for the future, who knows?
Someone could ITP some papers, maybe. At that point only the DFSG-free
ones will be able to go in main. It will be better, if there are more of

> > Actually the C4P already requires some permissions from the authors:
> > | Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers,
> > | presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual
> > | materials used in conjunction with the presentation.
> And this requirement would be a no-op under your theory that a
> DFSG-free license for the papers is required. Therefore I conclude
> that your theory is wrong.

Which theory?
Mine is a suggestion, not a theory.
If it's accepted, the C4P will obviously be modified and will drop the
non-exclusive publication rights requirement (as it is actually implied
by the DFSG-compliance requirement that I'm suggesting).

> > What I suggest is simply adding one further condition.
> For the record, I oppose this suggestion.

I cannot fully understand why, but I take note of it.
Are you concerned that less papers would be submitted to DebConf6 with
such a rule?
In case you are: why aren't you similarly concerned that less packages
will be distributed in main, if we care "too much" about Freeness

    :-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
  Francesco Poli                             GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpPVyC1QKsr2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: