29 Jan
2004
29 Jan
'04
2 a.m.
Joern Nettingsmeier <nettings(a)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