Re: Лицензия CC-BY

[Alexander Gerasiov]

Hello D.Himro,

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 03:46:08 +0300
"D.Himro"  wrote:

> Добрый день уважаемые. Может кто хорошо ориентируется в всевозможных
> лицензиях. Совместим ли сабж с политикой Debian?
> 

Всё зависит от версии. Начиная с версии 3, насколько я помню, проблем
уже нет. До этого лицензии не соответствовали DFSG.

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander Gerasiov

 Contacts:
 e-mail: g...@cs.msu.su  Homepage: http://gerasiov.net  Skype: gerasiov
 PGP fingerprint: 04B5 9D90 DF7C C2AB CD49  BAEA CA87 E9E8 2AAC 33F1

Re: Лицензия CC-BY

[Oleksandr Gavenko]

On 2016-02-12, D.Himro wrote:

> Добрый день уважаемые. Может кто хорошо ориентируется в всевозможных
> лицензиях. Совместим ли сабж с политикой Debian?

Добавлю к моему ответу что версии 1.0/2.0/2.5 написаны мутно и основной
причиной релиза 3.0 у организации СС было как раз гармонизация требований DFSG
с текстом лицензии.

По поводу 3.0 и 4.0 не было голосований и официальной позиции, кроме заверений
отдельних персон что все OK и факта что куча пакетов с CC-BY / CC-BY-SA
3.0/4.0 в репозитории в main/contrib.

Для себя я сделал вывод что мантейнерам (те кто имеет голос) просто не
интересно заниматься лицензиями и какого либо порядка вы не увидите в Debian.

То ли сравнивать с http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

-- 
http://defun.work/

Re: Лицензия CC-BY

[Oleksandr Gavenko]

On 2016-02-12, D.Himro wrote:

> Добрый день уважаемые. Может кто хорошо ориентируется в всевозможных
> лицензиях. Совместим ли сабж с политикой Debian?

Я недавно спрашивал:

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2015/11/msg0.html

> https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses have no conclusion about CC-BY 3.0/4.0
> licenses.

> My system (up to date testing) already have CC-BY packages:

>   $ cat /usr/share/doc/*/copyright | command grep -i ^license:.*CC | sort | 
> uniq -c

>  ...
>  10 License: CC-BY
>  33 License: CC-BY-3.0
>   1 License: CC-BY-3.0-US
>  ...

> Most notable application that uses CC-BY-3.0 is Deluge BitTorrent client:

>   Files: deluge/deluge/ui/web/icons/*
>   Copyright: Furgue icons from http://pinvoke.com/
>   License: CC-BY-3.0

> Search in debian-legal list shown that topic question already was asked
> several times. Summary is follow:

>   https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/04/msg00027.html
> My own personal opinion is that CC-by-sa-v4.0 fails to meet the DFSG.
> ...
> Debian ftp masters seem to disagree with me on CC-v3.0 licenses: they
> seem to think that CC-by-sa-v3.0 and CC-by-v3.0 are acceptable for
> Debian main.

>   https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/04/msg00032.html
> Reading them side-by-side: (CC-BY-SA 3.0 and 4.0)
> 
> So it's no worse than 3.0 and I don't remember what I thought of that :-)
> > [2]: https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
> I'll update that now.

>   https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2013/08/msg00015.html
> Secondly, it's true that FTP-masters currently accept works licensed
> under CC-by-sa-v3.0 and under CC-by-v3.0 into Debian main.

>   https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/01/msg00084.html
> AFAICT, the status is as follows:
>   a) works licensed under the terms of CC-by-v3.0 seem to be currently
>  accepted by FTP-masters as DFSG-free
>   b) some people (mostly myself!) disagree with this conclusion and have
>  explained their position repeatedly on this list and elsewhere, but
>  (unfortunately!) failed to gain consensus
> ...
> as far as the Debian Project is concerned, is the FTP-masters' one: they
> are the real decision-makers.

>   https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/01/msg00085.html
> Re: is CC BY 3.0 DFSG-free, again
> I don't know which previous discussions you refer to, but reviewing the
> licenses, the *only* difference I see between CC BY 3.0 and CC BY-SA 3.0 
> is
> that CC BY-SA includes an *additional* restriction relative the CC BY (the
> copyleft requirement).

> Therefore, if CC BY-SA 3.0 is ok, CC BY 3.0 is also ok.

> While I can't find official decision about CC-BY 3.0/4.0 it seems acceptable
> with only complain from single person (see above quotations).

> Main problem with this issue is NEED TO SEARCH OVER MAIL LIST FOR EACH
> interested person. I personally spent 1 hour to figure out state of license
> (that it currently is acceptable).

> Please may any update https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses page to describe
> current practice for CC-BY 3.0/4.0?

> I can do it myself but afraid edit wars.

> Also I frustrated with docs:

>   
> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-short-name

> Why include shortening for CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-ND? Or this abbreviation for
> packages from 'non-free' section?


Paul Tagliamonte :

> CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC-BY-SA 4.0 are both DFSG free.
> CC-BY-SA 2.5 is not.
> Any CC license with -NC is nonfree.


> On 2015-11-01, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:

> > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Oleksandr Gavenko 
> > wrote:
> > CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC-BY-SA 4.0 are both DFSG free.
> >
> > CC-BY-SA 2.5 is not.
> >
> > Any CC license with -NC is nonfree.
> >
> I already known that info, it present on

>   https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses

> My question about:

> > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Oleksandr Gavenko 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> describe current practice for CC-BY 3.0/4.0?

> CC-BY is different from CC-BY-SA:

>   https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

>   https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

> BY without SA is fine. ND and NC are not.

> Its basically copyleft vs permissive. Non-SA works don't ensure derived works 
> are also in the Commons.
> On Nov 1, 2015 3:22 PM, "Oleksandr Gavenko"  wrote:



В общем мне не ясно почему явно не сказать про CC-BY на wiki.

И не ясно почему важные моменты прописаны на world-writable wiki.

Можно прикрываться что это демократия, но по настоящему это ...во

-- 
http://defun.work/

Re: Лицензия CC-BY

[Vasily Ivanov]

On 2016-02-12 0346 (+0300), D.Himro wrote:

Добрый день уважаемые. Может кто хорошо ориентируется в всевозможных
лицензиях. Совместим ли сабж с политикой Debian?


Судя по [1,2] - нет.


Debian-legal has concluded that the CC-by (Creative Commons
Attribution license) v1.0 is not a DFSG-free license.


[1]: https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
[2]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00031.html