On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 03:04:51PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > 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*. >
At the moment, this is correct. A discussion was had on the mailing list[0] and the irc channel[1] on a similar issue, whether we should allow non-free software for the presentation of slides. I updated the site to state: "If using slides, please consider that your audience will consist of people who use free software, and your choice of application to prepare and display the slides should reflect this if at all possible." I think this strikes a good balance of: "Use free software! Use free software! Use free software! Oh, ok, if you really can't, I suppose we'll let you get away with it. But you should really." > > 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. > Interestingly, no one has asked us to do so on the team list. Regards, Neil McGovern [0] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] #debconf-team @ Freenode -- __ .` `. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Application Manager : :' ! ---------------- | Secure-Testing Team member '. `- gpg: B345BDD3 | Webapps Team member `- Please don't cc, I'm subscribed to the list
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature