NN == Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NN Actually, I think most of clause 4b is fine; it's only one
NN little bit of it which is troublesome.
Thanks for your close attention. This is really helpful.
4b to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource
4b
On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 02:15:37PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
One thing that bothers me, though, is how this becomes 'barely
free'. I realize that it may be *annoying* or *stupid*, but how is it
*non-free*? I understand how *excessive* conditions on modifications
may make something non-free,
AS == Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Me One thing that bothers me, though, is how this becomes 'barely
Me free'.
AS Freedom is a binary test; a work is either free, or it is
AS not. There is no partially free or semi-free. So barely
AS free is free, but very close
posted mailed
Evan Prodromou wrote:
NN == Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NN Actually, I think most of clause 4b is fine; it's only one
NN little bit of it which is troublesome.
Thanks for your close attention. This is really helpful.
4b to the extent
Evan Prodromou wrote:
AS == Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Me One thing that bothers me, though, is how this becomes 'barely
Me free'.
AS Freedom is a binary test; a work is either free, or it is
AS not. There is no partially free or semi-free. So barely
Evan Prodromou [Wed Jun 09, 2004 at 02:46:23PM -0400]:
I can try to bring the subject up on the cc-licenses list again.
I am involved with the adaptation of the CC licences in Australia, and
have raised the issues with the drafting team.
I have also pointed out the problems to our project
On 2004-06-09 09:17:45 +0100 Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just don't think the second paragraph in the trademark box is
binding in any way. After all, Creative Commons (quite wisely) states
that it is not a party to the license. For what reason, then, should
either of the parties
NN == Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Me On the Creative Commons side, I'd wonder what opportunity there
Me is to get Debian's very tardy comments and critiques applied to
Me new versions of the CC licenses.
NN Perhaps if they read their own mailing list?...
That's a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm writing because I've just been made aware of this summary of the
Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 license:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00031.html
Let me first note that Creative Commons uses a suite of licenses, with
a
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 12:06:25PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
I'm writing because I've just been made aware of this summary of the
Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 license:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00031.html
Let me first note that Creative Commons uses a suite
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 02:35:55PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
AS We've done these to death already, starting in 2003. They're
AS non-free. That won't change.
Ah. Well, could you respond to my points as to why I think they _are_
free? I disagree with the terms of the summary.
You
AS == Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AS Beyond that I'm not personally inclined to analyse a license
AS which is clearly non-free for other reasons; it's
AS time-consuming.
No problem; I'm sure someone else will chime in. Thanks for your help
so far.
~ESP
--
Evan
On 2004-06-08 17:06:25 +0100 Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Second, let me note how poorly timed the analysis is. Creative Commons
revised their suite of licenses this year (from 1.0 to 2.0), and this
list was asked to provide comment:
MR == MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Me Second, let me note how poorly timed the analysis is.
MR It may be poorly timed but at least a debian user helped to
MR make it happen. Please praise Ben Francis and give him due
MR credit for getting your attention with
MR
On 2004-06-08 17:06:25 +0100 Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a number of mix-and-match license elements (Attribution, ShareAlike,
NonCommercial, NoDerivatives). So any CC license that would require
Attribution would also fall under this analysis.
Do any SA/NC/ND licences not include
On 2004-06-09 00:12:02 +0100 Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MR == MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please don't SuperCite outgoing email. It is difficult to follow.
[...] I'm now
subscribed to debian-legal and I'll try to keep the lines of
communication open better.
I don't think
posted mailed
Evan Prodromou wrote:
snip
Making our organization's ideas known to Creative Commons could have
meant a better suite of licenses for the 2.0 release. Instead, the
opportunity was missed. As far as I know, the above-mentioned analysis
wasn't forwarded to Creative Commons before
On 2004-06-09 01:56:18 +0100 Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
3) As for the trademark clause, I agree that the trademark
requirement
is burdensome.
This isn't supposed to be an actual part of the license, according to
the
source code for the web page; [...]
I missed that. I'm not
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-06-08 17:06:25 +0100 Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a number of mix-and-match license elements (Attribution, ShareAlike,
NonCommercial, NoDerivatives). So any CC license that would require
Attribution would also fall under this analysis.
Do any SA/NC/ND
Evan Prodroumou wrote:
On the Creative Commons side, I'd wonder what opportunity there is to
get Debian's very tardy comments and critiques applied to new versions
of the CC licenses.
Perhaps if they read their own mailing list?...
The trademark issue appears to be an issue solely with the web
20 matches
Mail list logo
