Le Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 11:39:16AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte a écrit :
>
> Perhaps you'd be interested in helping:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/01/msg00043.html
I can not write your explanations for you, sorry. I have read the diff between
the versions 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 mutiple times, and I have not found anything
convincing that would support the current situation of rejecting 2.0 and
accepting 3.0. Note that I already asked.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/02/msg00080.html
I think that your call for help here is upside-down: we can spend years
documenting rare licenses where it is obvious that they do not fit the DFSG.
This will not make a significant difference. What will be much more helpful
would be to have a clear documentation the frequently problematic cases, with
the pros and cons, and the final decision taken.
Again, it is your decision, which I do not understand, so I can not write the
explanation for it. But I would be grateful if you did. It does not need to
be long: there is at least one sentence in CC 2.0 licenses, that has been
changed
in CC 3.0 licences to make them Free.
The reason I ask with so much insistance is that I really feel like an idiot
when I contact upstream to ask them to relicense works, and I am not able to
explain why it matters.
Cheers,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130901164319.gc8...@falafel.plessy.net
