[replying to a message that was directed to debian-devel only, but readding debian-legal in Cc:] On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 09:38:07 +0100 Andreas Schuldei wrote: > * Francesco Poli <frx@winstonsmith.info> [2005-11-08 00:28:07]: > > "The authors have the freedom to pick a DFSG-free license" means > > that they *may* do so, but are not required to. Am I correct? > > > > IMHO, DebConf paper authors should be *required* to publish in a > > DFSG-free manner, as a condition for presenting at the conference. > > > > Don't you agree that seeing non-free or even undistributable (no > > license means "All Rights Reserved", with current laws!) papers at a > > DebConf is really a shame? > > given your knowledge level of how debconf intents to handle > things and the way you escalate this issue gives me the idea that > you mainly want to raise a stink and create unrest. First of all, it is *not at all* my intention to raise stinks or create unrest. If I gave the impression of being rude, I apologize: I didn't want to. I am not an English native speaker, hence I may have chosen the wrong words or style when drafting my message; moreover I may have misunderstood something when reading the C4P (Call For Papers). > > So please inform yourself properly first. I visited http://debconf.org/ and failed to find any other relevant information about paper licensing, apart from the C4P itself. If you can point me to some URL where I can get first-hand info about how DebConf organizers plan to handle this kind of things, I would appreciate it. > that might include to > take up the issue in a friendly way with someone who is involved I think you are involved (!) and I did raise this issue with you privately (end of last August), but unfortunately the thread died out... Now your C4P for DebConf6 reminded me of the issue, so I went through it as carefully as I could searching for any indication on how it was handled. I found the above-quoted sentence ("The authors have the freedom to pick a DFSG-free license") and felt it was not clear enough (again I am not an English native speaker, but many many people are not either). That is why I asked for clarification and, in case the sentence means what I'm afraid it does, I suggested a different policy... As to the friendliness, I tried hard to be as polite and friendly as I could. Again, if I failed, it's my fault: I apologize. I really appreciate your efforts to organize the best conference you can. I really *love* the idea of a conference entirely dedicated to Debian, to be held in a different place each time. 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. > or trying to submit a proposal, paper or even give a talk > yourself. I really doubt I will be able to attend DebConf6, unfortunately. :-( > > You might also think about the organizers options when a speaker > surprisingly NOT picks a DFSG free license, If the rules mandate a DFSG-free license (as I suggest), I think the only option for the organizers is to not include the paper/presentation/handout in the conference proceedings and to not distribute it through the conference website, until the licensing issue is solved. Just like a Debian package doesn't enter main, until it meets Policy requirements (DFSG-freeness being one of them). > double-licenses his talk in an awkward way If you mean "dual-licenses", then everything's fine as long as at least one of the chosen licenses makes the paper/presentation/handout DFSG-free. Otherwise, goto previous case. ;-) > or declares before the audience that his > talk must not be distributed. In that case the talk cannot be distributed through the conference website or in the proceedings. But this holds even if you do not mandate a DFSG-free license. 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. Hence, you already have to plan what to do, when an author does not fulfill the C4P requirements. Correct me, if I'm wrong. > > Also consider the legal implications of an intention or promise > to release a DFSG free talk vs the actual act of releasing the > work and when that happens in a legally binding way. Then > consider the character of the CFP as a legaly binding document > for the licenses of the actual talks of the speakers. As I said above, the publication of papers/presentations/handouts is anyway subject to some conditions. What I suggest is simply adding one further condition. I hope I clarified what I mean... -- :-( 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:
pgpdYHB7h5hKr.pgp
Description: PGP signature