Re: Licenses for DebConf6 [was: Re: DebConf6: Call For Papers]
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 12:28:07AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 10:01:48 +0100 Andreas Schuldei wrote: Fine Print Publication Rights Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers, presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual materials used in conjunction with the presentation. The authors have the freedom to pick a DFSG-free license for the papers themselves and retain all copyrights. I agree with and support the decision of the organizers to allow any DFSG-free license for the papers to be acceptable. That they are mandating this is acceptible and is to be encouraged for an event connected with Debian. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licenses for DebConf6 [was: Re: DebConf6: Call For Papers]
sorry for replying to this only today. i had been busy preparing for a talk i was giving yesterday at a conf. * Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-10 01:08:49]: 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). no, you could have asked on the debconf6-team mailinglist, for example. trying to get the largest possible audience by sending this to d-d and d-l is both addressing the wrong audience and trying to raising a stink. 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. you could have look at the archives of the debconf6-team mailinglist where in http://liw.iki.fi/lists/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00169.html it says btw, the licence situation (of the talks and videos) will be taken care of in COMAS (our conference management system) directly, something like people who'll commit talks will have to choose a (proper) licence at commit time. the current plan is to have a drop down menu where people can choose the license they want, very much like when they chose a license for an alioth project. I think you are involved (!) and I did raise this issue with you privately (end of last August), yes, then you complained about the way the license and distribution of the talks had been handled, that they were not available from the debconf.org server any more (due to a breakin). That is how i perceived it, at least. you did not make any constructive suggestions at any point. (and how could you, only refering to debconf5?) 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. do we limit personal freedom of speakers in favour of our own, when we prescribe a license? debconf is about exchange of ideas (among others). will we only permit ideas from people that already share out view of DFSG-free? 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). yes, and i guess it will have consequences when speakers choose a non-free lisenese for their talk. It will reduce their chances to get a slot. 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: the point is that the authors can violate the (informal) agreement given on the website and in a last minute action deliver a talk with an other license then aggreed uppon. We (the lynch mob) could wrestle down the speaker, beat her up, smash her notebook and carry her outside for further treatment, i guess. or something similar. (c: (attention! joke!) | 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. and so we do (c: they are not very specific, so far, though. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Licenses for DebConf6 [was: Re: DebConf6: Call For Papers]
[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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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
Re: Licenses for DebConf6 [was: Re: DebConf6: Call For Papers]
* Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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. So please inform yourself properly first. that might include to take up the issue in a friendly way with someone who is involved or trying to submit a proposal, paper or even give a talk yourself. You might also think about the organizers options when a speaker surprisingly NOT picks a DFSG free license, double-licenses his talk in an awkward way or declares before the audience that his talk must not be distributed. 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. But please do so alone, first. /andreas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Licenses for DebConf6 [was: Re: DebConf6: Call For Papers]
[Added Cc: debian-legal, because the topic may be of interest there, I would say.] [No need to Cc: me, as long as you keep Cc:ing debian-legal (just to make things clear: I am subscribed to debian-legal, but not to debian-devel)] On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 10:01:48 +0100 Andreas Schuldei wrote: Fine Print Publication Rights Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers, presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual materials used in conjunction with the presentation. The authors have the freedom to pick a DFSG-free license for the papers themselves and retain all copyrights. 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? The presentations will be recorded, and may be broadcast over the Internet. Any copies of the presentation will be made available under a license like the MIT/X11 license. This refers to audio/video recordings, IIUC. It seems that the same rules adopted for DebConf5 still hold for DebConf6. Good. -- :-( 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 pgpHsvUcbzJHS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Licenses for DebConf6 [was: Re: DebConf6: Call For Papers]
On Monday 07 November 2005 11:28 pm, Francesco Poli wrote: [Added Cc: debian-legal, because the topic may be of interest there, I would say.] [No need to Cc: me, as long as you keep Cc:ing debian-legal (just to make things clear: I am subscribed to debian-legal, but not to debian-devel)] used in conjunction with the presentation. The authors have the freedom to pick a DFSG-free license for the papers themselves and retain all copyrights. 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? The way I read it was that the authors may pick any license, so long as it's DFSG-free. Do you see how it could be read that way? Now, because they are the copyright holders, they could additionally license it in some other way, too. But they must at least offer a DFSG-free license. -- Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Running on GNU/kFreeBSD; i686-pc-kfreebsd-gnu Support alternative kernels in Debian! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OT: Humor: Re: Licenses for DebConf6 [was: Re: DebConf6: Call For Papers]
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Brian M. Carlson wrote: The way I read it was that the authors may pick any license, so long as it's DFSG-free. Do you see how it could be read that way? You sound just like Henry Ford. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Humor: Re: Licenses for DebConf6 [was: Re: DebConf6: Call For Papers]
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:58 am, Adam Heath wrote: On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Brian M. Carlson wrote: The way I read it was that the authors may pick any license, so long as it's DFSG-free. Do you see how it could be read that way? You sound just like Henry Ford. My goal was to do exactly that. I was hoping someone would catch it. :-) -- Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Running on GNU/kFreeBSD; i686-pc-kfreebsd-gnu Support alternative kernels in Debian! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
