On 1/13/06, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:03:14PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > On 1/13/06, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Please stop trying to twist my words around. Canonical didn't contribute > > > > back. An individual who happened to work for Canonical did. If someone > > > > employed by the US government contributes to Debian of his own volition > > > > do > > > > we say that the US government gives back to Debian? Do we say that your > > > > employer gives back to Debian? > > > > > > If it's an authorised use of company time, sure. Whether or not it is in > > > this case, I don't know. > > > > > > > Exactly my point Matthew, and calm down David, i wrote: "e.g.: David > > said that Daniel helped him, but if he did that in his workhours it's > > under Canonical bless.". Do you see ? I just pointed out that there's > > a possibility that he was helping you in his workhours, > > You've never done anything at work that wasn't officially sanctioned by your > boss?
No, because i'm the technology coordinator in a NGO and i'm free to contribute to the Debian project during my workhours since we develop a CDD for telecentres. I see your point, but you're mixing different stuff. AFAIK the 'contribute back to Debian' is endorsed by Canonical, so it's officially sanctioned there using your own words. -- Gustavo Franco
