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

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:26:52 +1000, Anthony Towns
<aj@azure.humbug.org.au> said:  

> On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:49:21AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> [If this poses a problem,[1] you always have the option of not
>> presenting, or presenting your work in an informal session.]

> *sigh*

> Does this really have to devolve to "if you don't like it, go away"
> already? How about showing your potential speakers enough courtesy
> to at least consider their concerns, and enough respect to believe
> that they're scrupulous enough that they'll do the right thing even
> without being forced? Or, for that matter, having the flexibility to
> accept that sometimes the right thing changes depending on the
> situation?

        Err, if this compilation is a project Debian product, or is
 associated with us, then it seems like we are doing to presentation
 software bits what we ask of producers of other kinds of software
 bits: If you want it to be part of debian, you must ship all them
 software bits under a license we deem free.

        Why are presentation 0's and 1-s any different from executable
 0's and 1's, or documentation 0's and 1's ?

        Again, if debconf is not related to debian, than none of this
 applies, and in that case, can we take this off a mailing list for
 Debian development?

We're living in a golden age.  All you need is gold. D.W. Robertson.
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: