29 Jan
2004
29 Jan
'04
1:41 a.m.
Andrea Glorioso wrote:
you are right. ditch the idea.
still, it might be useful to somehow label "for profit" as in "this page
might contain advertising hype and somebody's trying to make a living
out of it" and non-profit as in "community or privately maintained site
with no corporate or institutional backing".
this is not to create artificial divides, but just to avoid
misunderstandings. i have absolutely nothing against people trying to
get some money out of linux audio, but it is helpful to see at a glance
whether a page is for profit or not (i tend to read pages differently
depending on that), and whether somebody is speaking with a personal
monetary interest.
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. as i said, i was dreaming something up.
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!)
but this probably justifies a new thread.
great :)
:)
yes, definitely.
--
"I never use EQ, never, never, never. I previously used to use mic
positioning but I've even given up on that too."
- Jezar on http://www.audiomelody.com
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Kurfürstenstr 49, 45138 Essen, Germany
http://spunk.dnsalias.org (my server)
http://www.linuxaudiodev.org (Linux Audio Developers)
Joern Nettingsmeier
<nettings(a)folkwang-hochschule.de> writes:
perhaps we
could have two sections: free community sites and
commercial sites.
I fail to understand how the distinction could be made. As long as
the produced software is Libre Software, the produced documentation is
licensed under either the GNU FDL (for technical documentation) or
under a Creative Commons license (Attribution, Attribution/ShareAlike
are my proposed choices) the distinction between "commercial" and "non
commercial" becomes, IMHO, unuseful and *could* become unflexible. i would like to
see all parts of the community (LAD, linuxaudio.org,
younameit) share a common logo to generate some "corporate identity"
both for the members of the communities and visitors, without each
part implicitly having to endorse everything the other does.
That's not so easy, I fear. It can be made doable providing a very
clear set of rules to abide to (and discussing them, of course).
<braindump>
in the same move, i like andrea's offer of subdomains a lot.
Just to be clear, in this moment it's more of a proposal I will do to
other consortium's members. I'm not the owner of the linuxaudio.org
domain - the owner is Daniel James at the moment, although I suppose
it will be passed on to the Consortium as soon as the latter is
formed.
Said that, as I already wrote, I will propose this subdomain project
to the Consortium and vote for it. I'm not sure I understood what do you mean for
"relating to more than
one project".
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.
As for the common looks, it would be nice, but
I'm not sure this can
easily happen without major manpower (and some nice diplomatic
skills).
well, you are right, common looks is a bit much...
from my experience at the university, a corporate design is beyond
diplomacy and well into the realm of "the art of war" :)
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.
don't get
me wrong, i'm not intending to force anybody in, or
annihilate people's private efforts. it's just a "would be nifty"
scenario to have everybody under one roof, and it has the nice
side-effect of alleviating the remaining paranoia against
linuxaudio.org :-D
i'm prepared to move the lad page over to
linuxaudio.org if people
don't vote against it.
I'd personally love it - but I'd like first to see the Consortium
legal status, wrt its nature and its statute, to be clearly defined
first. This is to avoid any incomprehension (i.e. any humanly
avoidable and understandable uncomprehension, we neither can nor
should worry about the rest).