On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:04:51 +0100, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> From reading the responses from Andreas, rather than people trying >> poorly to interpret him, it's pretty apparent that they'll be >> giving freely licensed talks a greater weight than non-free >> ones. They're also going to make it easy to choose a free license >> from their interface. Furthermore, it implies a very strong desire >> to have freely licensed materials > All of that is nice and well, but it does not change the fact that a > DSFG-free license is not *required*. Which is a pity. The same benefit that accrue from freedom of software still remain if that software bits represent a presentation; the software/presentation can be modified to suit a particular need, and redistributed, excepts can be used in other presentations, ica can be part of a larger educational effort. Like any other software, having the free software/presentation bits leads to collaboation, invention, and greater benefit to the community of users. It is a pity that a conference of debian developers, and others interested in developing debian, which is itself dedicated to being wholly free, and who has just rejected the GFDL as not being free enough to be a part of debian, is now saying that in order to be a part of Debian's conference, anything goes, and the sole rationale given is that non-free stuff, while restricting the usage rights of the community, is OK to ensure the success of the conference. I se this as saying that freedom is OK until it comes to something real, like holding a conference, and then the whole community/rights/freedom thingy is unworkable and too restrictive for words. There has been no argument that the rights of software freedom would not apply to software that represents presentations, only that somehow freedom implies you do not get the best of what is out there. Yes, a pity. >> Hopefully if you don't like the way they run the conference you'll >> get involved in the future and help to make it even better. > I am perfectly happy with the way the conference is being run. I am > opposing those people who want the organisers to change the way it > is being run, such that DFSG-nonfree papers will be thrown out > simply because of the licensing. Yes, I understannd you are in opposition. What you have not explained is why, or why are the reasons that software that represents programs or software that represents documentation should be free do not also apply to software that represents presentation materials. Why is it that the end user who looks st the presentation support software should not also gain the benefit of any free software, to edit, modify, incorporate into larger works, and freely distribute the result to others in the community. manoj -- There are two ways of disliking poetry; one way is to dislike it, the other is to read Pope. -- Oscar Wilde Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]