Re: consultant entries that will be removed unless they "pong"
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 01:00:28AM +0100, Rich Walker wrote:
> > Why should Debian *advertise* the services of someone who will not
> > return the favour?
> Why should a consultant be *forced* to advertise for Debian in order
> to obtain listing in our directory?
Why shouldn't we expect consultants to advertise the services that
lead their placement on Debian's consultant list? I mean, isn't the
whole point of having them on the list that they provide services for
> To me, this smacks of the kind of additional restriction that we
> would call 'non-free' if it were placed on a piece of code.
The analogous "restriction" would not be non-free, as it's a
"restriction" that we exercise everyday. The consultant is quite
free to take the list and add themselves on their own website without
placing any information about Debian anywhere.
1: If you think you don't, then you must never reject patches.
[insert something here]