Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:45:35 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
>> The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out >> copyright _transfer_. However, in practice they will usually accept a >> non-exclusive license to print and distribute unmodified copies. >> I think it would be sad if Debconf required more than that. > Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's > distributable. As does Debian. We just label the non-free software such that users have an easy way to be sure that they are not using it. > Debian requires more than that in order to let something enter main. > Is this sad? No. I'm not saying at all that papers that are not DFSG-free should enter main. What gave you that idea? > I disagree with your calling "licensing in a DFSG-free manner" as > "giving up rights": this seems to imply that releasing DFSG-free works > is something wrong or inappropriate. I am unable to comprehend why you think there is such an implication. By licencing things in a DFSG-free manner one needs to give up the right to prevent others from distributing modified versions of the work. That is a legal fact, not a matter of opinion. How you can go from a statement of this legal fact to a value judgement (which the words "wrong" and "inappropriate" are) is beyond me. > I would like to see more authors licensing in a DFSG-free manner because > I want more freedom for the end-users It's your right to want that, and you are free to encourage authors to do so. But that is something different from saying that papers with a cogent technical contribution should be rejected from a conference simply because their licensing does not live up to your ideals. > Papers are (most often) documentation: I think that, recently, we > lack DFSG-free documentation more than DFSG-free programs. If there's a lack of documentation, by all means encourage people to write some free documentation. However, I do not think that is furthered in particular by rejecting papers at at conference. > Oh my goodness, I'm explaining code reuse and the strengths of free > software on _two_ Debian mailing lists! :-| We are talking about conference papers. Not code, not software, not documentation to be distributed in main. > These considerations should be seen as well known and obvious here... They do not mean that we _require_ of anybody that they license their software under a DFSG-free license. Our position is that software in this world exists already and already has whatever license its author is willing to grant. If the license is DFSG-free it is great, and it can go into main. If it is not, it can (sometimes, guided by purely practical considerations) be distributed in non-free. >> How do you conclude that? The conference papers are not going to be >> part of an operating system that anybody depends on; > As has already been replied: "says who?". Says I. Making the proceedings into a package would be pure archive bloat. A website is much superior for that purpose. > Some papers could become useful documentation packaged for Debian. In those cases we should consider their merits as documentation, _irrespective_ of whether they are also Debconf papers or not. A paper that is not DFSG-free cannot be used as documentation - this holds whether or not it is a Debconf paper, and it does not become DFSG-free simply by being rejected from Debconf. >> nobody will have a need to go about changing them. > Again: "says who?". Says the laws of physics. The conference proceedings is a record of what was presented at the conference at a definite moment in the past, and what happened at that moment is not going to change. > What is born as a paper, can become (part of) a HOWTO or similar > document. > Certainly this will never happen, if no permission to modify is granted. And rejecting the paper from the conference is not going to change that. >> This is a different situation from documentation of code that _is_ >> in the operating system. > You seemingly fail to see that the two sets (conference papers and > documentation in the OS) may overlap. Of course they may *overlap*. That is fine. But the fact that a paper is not in the overlap is no reason to reject it. > What do you think DebConf papers will talk about? Debian in general. That includes, but is certainly not limited to, individual pieces of software. > Papers are generally written *before* the conference takes place, not > *after* (or does DebConf work the other way around?). > How can papers talk about "what happened at the conference"? Because the paper is what is presented at the conference. >> I don't see how _anyone_ are better served by having an empty slot in >> the conference instead of a paper, simply because the paper is not >> modifiable. > If you see how users are better served by having a non-free package > moved out of main and possibly not distributed at all by the Debian > infrastructure (e.g.: Sun's Java), maybe you can catch the analogy... I cannot see that anyone is better served by having a non-free package moved out of main and not distrubted at all by the Debian infrastructure, than by having the non-free package moved out of main and into non-free. We sometimes have to not distribute something even in non-free, but that is either because we don't have the choice, or because nobody cares enough to do the work. -- Henning Makholm "... it cannot be told in his own words because after September 11 he forgot about keeping his diary for a long time." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]