[ILUG] ILUG AGM Announcement
linux at esatclear.ie
Fri Oct 15 18:16:07 IST 2004
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 03:56:31PM +0000, Niall Walsh wrote:
>>I believe it is relevant to the running of ILUG. The website is a
>>considerable part of our existance, and to the outside world (and one of
>>our main aims is to promote Linux) it IS our existance.
>Stop being silly. The website could dissapear tomorrow, and the majority
>of members wouldn't even notice.
Before calling me silly, read what I said again ... to the outside world
the site is our existence, not to the members the site is our existence.
I suggest you re-read the aims of the ILUG from our constitution to see
where it says that we should ignore everyone except the members?
>But what do you think this decision will actually achieve that can't
>be achieved by just asking the content authors? Something which is
>the inevitable result of a motion anyway.
A change to the copyright page on the site and to the license on future
submissions along with the requests to existing authors.
>Do you actually think that there is a serious danger of a content author
>taking issue with ILUG's use of their words?
Perhaps, if they feel their professional reputation or some project they
are involved with is being tarnished under their name. Or else it
could be for malicious reasons.
>What I've tried to explain is that what the membership thinks does not
>matter in this respect, it is what the individual content authors think
>that matters. The entire membership could have a unanimous resolution
>demanding the CC licensing of all articles, but it wouldn't make a bit
>of difference unless the content authors agreed.
The individual content authors have complete power in deciding how their
work is licensed/copyrighted, no disputes there. That doesn't mean
that ILUG cannot dictate terms under which it will accept such work.
If the members think that the content should be licensed differently
then that is how it should be, if no-one then wants to write anything
the LUG has cut off it's nose to spite it's face, but as you admitted
yourself pretty much anyone contributing will/should be happy to give
some further rights to ILUG by licesing under a CC or similar.
>Therefore, to my mind, this issue is best directed to the authors rather
>than the membership at a GM. But whatever, this thread is wasting more
>time at this point.
The members generally are the authors. The readers generally aren't
members. Or do you think the 400 odd members of ILUG accounted for the
17,000 visits to the BLG in April 2004?
>Frankly I think you'd have a *very* hard time making a case
>if your own words were credited to you and other's to themselves.
But what if the article is simply credited to me but is no longer what I
wrote? The least you seem to be suggesting is that all edits/additions
should be clearly attributed.
More information about the ILUG