Re: Freely licencing SLUG talks (Re: [SLUG] Video Sales to Support SLUG)
To: Mary <mary-slug@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Freely licencing SLUG talks (Re: [SLUG] Video Sales to Support SLUG)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 14:29:21 +1000
Umm... It's not really a direct Linux issue though is it? (Chat would be a great place for this discussion.)
Michael S. E. Kraus
Capital Holdings Group (NSW) Pty Ltd
p: (02) 9955 8000
Mary <mary-slug@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: slug-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
16/05/2003 02:27 PM
To: Penguinillas <slug@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Freely licencing SLUG talks (Re: [SLUG] Video Sales to Support SLUG)
On Fri, May 16, 2003, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Basically, the GFDL sucks as a licence, and shouldn't be used for anything.
> Anyone who wishes to debate this issue is invited to take it to -chat, or
> debian-legal (where such topics are a perennial favourite).
Leaving this on slug@ because it's a SLUG comment, not a licence one:
Given that there's been some discussion on here about:
1. Talk policies
2. Talk licencing
I'll put it on the agenda for the next committee meeting. More opinions
are welcome before then, especially from people who have seriously
considered licencing creative works, especially non-text ones, under a
free licence. What licence would you recommend for SLUG talks and why?
(non-SLUG creative licencing discussion to slug-chat please)
As far as talk policies go, I'm pretty serious when I say the informal
policy at the moment is:
if you're keen and your topic sounds interesting (for the SLUG
audience), you're in!
We await talk offers to committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug