On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Adam McKenna wrote: > On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 01:00:28AM +0100, Rich Walker wrote: > > Why should Debian *advertise* the services of someone who will not > > return the favour? > > Why should a consultant be *forced* to advertise for Debian in order > to obtain listing in our directory?
Why shouldn't we expect consultants to advertise the services that lead their placement on Debian's consultant list? I mean, isn't the whole point of having them on the list that they provide services for Debian? > To me, this smacks of the kind of additional restriction that we > would call 'non-free' if it were placed on a piece of code. The analogous "restriction" would not be non-free, as it's a "restriction" that we exercise everyday.[1] The consultant is quite free to take the list and add themselves on their own website without placing any information about Debian anywhere. Don Armstrong 1: If you think you don't, then you must never reject patches. -- [insert something here] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
