sama at agnula.org
Wed Jan 28 18:08:16 EST 2004
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
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
> 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.
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).
More information about the Consortium