[Consortium] linuxaudio.org

Marek Peteraj marpet at naex.sk
Sat Jan 24 07:32:02 EST 2004

On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 11:05, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
> Marek Peteraj <marpet at naex.sk> writes:
> > What are you talking about?  I contacted Daniel immidiatelly after i
> > found out about  this.  Pretty much everything  was  private at that
> > time.  That's a huge difference. And there's  still no neutral place
> > which would serve for advocacy related discussions.
> AGNULA will gladly offer hosting space for any such mailing list.
> If we reach a  consensus on how  to  handle this  thing, I  could even
> propose  (as a consortium member)

You could even propose to the members?? No thanks.

>  to  host the  mailing list under the
> lists.linuxaudio.org domain.    But obviously you   don't want to mesh
> your purity with such  an evil organization  (there are even companies
> as members, no more!).
> In any case, if you need hosting  space for your domain, mailing list,
> web site, whatever, feel free to drop me a line:
> <andrea.glorioso at agnula.org>

No thanks.

> >>   And don't whine if I
> >> forget to put you in Cc:.
> >
> > You don't have to. Luckily I can *now* read it here:
> > http://lists.agnula.org/pipermail/consortium/2004-January/thread.html
> You could read everything even before, you just had to subscribe. 

There was no link. Remember?

> >> > The problem is that projects aren't organisations from a legal point
> >> > of view.  
> >> 
> >> Not all of them.
> >
> > *None* of them. There's only one relationship between the authors of a
> > project and the project itself. Copyright. 
> Speaking of Libre Software projects  in general, that's not true (that
> they are not organizations from the legal point of view - it depends).

read below

> >> > Combining them with companies doesn't make much sense. A foundation
> >> > would offer additional protection as it would consist of developers
> >> > participating in linux audio projects which are subject to such
> >> > additional protection.
> >> 
> >> Which additional protection, *exactly*?
> >
> > So what if a company(member) that has no direct involvement in a project
> > abuses that project(member)? How is your consortium going to protect the
> > project? 
> What are the ways in which a consortium member could abuse another
> consortium meber in any way that it can't already do?

think, and read the LAD linuxaudio.org thread again.

> In any case, see points 4-7 of the policy.
> > Electing Fred as a member of that organization since he's a natural
> > person, he's active in a project.
> And how would this solve the problems you are talking about?  How
> would this avoid the problems I talked about?


> (For the record, I have no problem with Fred and/or Salem Radio being
> members of the Consortium).
> > "consortium of companies and libre software projects"
> > That's
> > 1. companies
> > 2. libre software projects.
> Let me understand.. if we had said "consortium of libre software
> projects and companies" it would have been ok to you?

No consortium please.

> >> > Just  an example -  2 job offerings were  posted  on LAD during this
> >> > week. Having a job bulletin board  on linuxaudio.org would come very
> >> > handy   for those searching   for  *linux audio*  related  jobs. Per
> >> > analogiam, *linux audio*   users, developers etc   would find *linux
> >> > audio* related information.
> >> 
> >> Again: I'm more than willing to propose the other consortium's members
> >> to provide  hosting space for such services.   Are you volunteering to
> >> maintain them?
> >
> > Not unless the domain acts as home for LAD, LAU and LAA at first place.
> > I'm even willing to buy that domain for the purpose of providing it for
> > the three mailinglists. 
> Even  though I've been thinking  for  some time to  propose the  other
> Consortium's members to change  domain name (just for  the sake of not
> losing time on stupid arguments like this) it's highly probable that I
> would vote *against* selling it to you, given the way in which you are
> presenting your  ideas 

Given the way you are responding. You were speaking to me in an
offending tone from the start.

> and  your  obvious prejudice  against companies

> (and, I should add, the basic fact that you accurately avoid answering
> questions you don't know how to answer).

Listen. I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again. Almost
everything has been said in the LAD linuxaudio.org thread. Basic law
background would help you to understand. I don't have the energy to
explain things when all i get is your offending tone.

> > We need *basic* services first, if we want to promote linux audio.
> > That's providing news, and documentation, tutorials for both developers
> > and users.
> You  know,  people  here have  been doing   it for  some time, without
> worrying too  much  about domain    names.   If you  are  willing   to
> contribute, I have plenty of things to do inside AGNULA (documentation
> writing, graphical artwork,    web  mastering,  news  collecting   and
> newsletter writing) that are *all* libre and could use some help.

I'd like to do that for LAD, LAU, LAA instead. Thanks.

> > Establishing   a  serious  organization  governed  by law(ownership,
> > contracts,  tax exemptions, grants, etc)   and providing services is
> > the last step.
> So do your homework and then come back later.

Offending tone.


More information about the Consortium mailing list