linuxaudio.org

Joern Nettingsmeier  writes:
> but then, all this is probably taken care of  by the imprint section

quoted text
> 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 ?

quoted text
> (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

quoted text
> application-specific sites from trying to get into the webring (as in

> .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

quoted text
> 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