On Fri, 2022-05-06 at 21:56 +0200, Marc Jeanmougin wrote:
Here from my pov we are implicitly voting on "The Inkscape project spends a part of its donations to release that specific music from a non-foss license into the copyleft world", which is a nice gesture to the world and my vote is (a) because as far as I understand doing so has benefits in particular to our release video for a "small" cost, but I'd still like to know if there was a miscommunication somewhere that could have been prevented…
There is a lesson to be learned and it is to be much more careful with both selection of outside media and licenses of suggested media. Because I think different contributors have different levels of understanding for open source licensing the media team is more educated now than it was before.
On Fri, 2022-05-06 at 21:48 +0100, C R wrote:
The item passes. Martin, please contact Karen and Pono for the reimbursement. And thanks again.
The extra cost was unexpected, and I took unilateral decisions because the music author was about to go on vacation and it was important to act swiftly. We don't have any project flexibility for this kind of, shall we say executive style decision making. And I knew that when making my decision to not ask the PLC first.
Some may say that I'm taking a hit for the project, or for Adam, or for Chris. But I had my big boy pants on when I spent my money to solve a problem quickly rather than consensually. I don't want anyone feeling like I'm not getting what's fair. And it makes me uncomfortable to impress upon the PLC a personal decision.
Chris, I know you want to do right by me, but this is one of those times when we take the hits we need to so we can learn how to do it better next time. I really do appreicate you sticking up for my interests and putting together this vote and why you think it's the right thing to do.
I won't be seeking reimbursement. But I will take up Ted and Ryan's offer to split the costs with me, if they still want to.
Martin,