[Consortium] linuxaudio.org

[Andrea Glorioso]

Joern Nettingsmeier <nettings at folkwang-hochschule.de> writes:

> but then, all this is probably taken care of  by the imprint section
> of the websites, so we  can just  leave it  to the site  maintainers
> themselves.

Yes, it's probably better.

I  still think that,  as long as  a real distinction between Libre and
non-Libre  Software is   maintained,  most problems  related  to being
commercial or not are quite secondary on the long run.

A Libre  Software  project tends to  be  "honest" by its very  nature.
It's hard to spread outright lies about a product when its source code
is available and some hundred persons  look at it  (and usually try to
do  things  the  original developers  couldn't  even  think about  - I
receive    reports on AGNULA/DeMuDi    that  really leave me perplexed
sometimes :).

> yes. as i said, i was dreaming something up.

That's fine - I love dreams, we would go nowhere without them. ;)

> perhaps a nice "linux audio social contract", no longer than one page ?
> (daniel, iirc it was you who complained about the gpl being too long
> and nobody reading it - i agree totally!)

I think that would be a good thing to have.  Be prepared for some
*long* discussion, however.

It could make sense to draft a proposal and reserve  a slot during the
2nd  LAD conference for  presenting it  (as  well as  on  the relevant
mailing lists, of course), what do you think?

> but this probably justifies a new thread.

Are you going to open it? :)

> i was trying to find a policy that will prevent a gazillion of
> application-specific sites from trying to get into the webring (as in
> <younameit>.sourceforge.net). so s/project/application should make it
> more clear.

I understand - and agree.

> let's just come up with a logo and a nice webring banner that will mix
> well with whatever design the site has (such as tweakable colors and
> decent transparent anti-aliasing), perhaps even a black-and-white logo
> that can be colored any old way.

Agreed.

I'd like to have  a clearer understanding of  what the legal situation
of the Consortium   is (or is planned to   be).  I do  understand that
Daniel James  is *very* busy  preparing  the booth at the  Sounds Expo
2004, so we might as well stop making noise and  wait for some answers
before going on (I'm not trying to pressure  Daniel or anybody else, I
just believe in making small steps and  fixing bugs/problems when they
arise - the legal  status of the Consortium  in all of this discussion
is, if not a bug,  at least a  point of  uncertainty  I'd like to  see
resolved as soon as possible).

bye,

andrea