* 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
