On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 17:32 -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
... and the fact that they refuse to fix such a simple thing bodes very ill
for getting more serious problems fixed ...
The Debian Creative Commons Workgroup has been talking to CC for about a
month now. We've had some pretty successful
Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'm not convinced by the trademark argument - I think it's pretty clear
from the HTML that it's not intended to be part of the license. Yes, it
would be better if that was made clearer, but:
a) CC appear to have said that it's not part of the license, and:
This one falls,
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 05:08:08PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'm not convinced by the trademark argument - I think it's pretty clear
from the HTML that it's not intended to be part of the license. Yes, it
would be better if that was made clearer, but:
a) CC
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we need to stay focused somewhere in the middle. A good metric
is to be suspicious of any language that appears non-free, absent other
information. In other words, err on the conservative side.
I'd tend to agree, though I'm not sure that that's
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 09:22:32PM -0400, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
I reject your attempt to make me decide without extra data.
What extra data do you need?
So far we've had apparently-expert opinions in both directions
about how this situation would be viewed by courts. I feel I
need
Francesco Poli wrote:
yep, sorry ;-)
Please, do not reply to me directly Cc:ing the list, as I didn't ask it.
Better reply to the list only, instead: I'm a subscriber and would
rather not receive replies twice.
Thanks.
[...]
On the contrary! :)
I think you should go on reading this useful
On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 03:27 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
So in summary, I think that 10 million is pure fiction.
Does it really matter? We don't have access to the Creative Commons Web logs nor their referrer count for the Some Rights Reserved image (which is what they use for counting),
On Sat, 2005-04-02 at 11:52 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
You're just wrong here. The fact that a license /can/ be interpreted in
a way that would result in it being non-free does not mean that all
material under that license should be considered non-free.
I think that there is a spectrum of
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 08:31:20AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 03:27 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
So in summary, I think that 10 million is pure fiction.
Does it really matter?
Not particularly, but there's no reason to spread the meme.
I'm going to modify the cc
On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, francois schnell wrote:
As both a Debian-Ubuntu and Creative Commons (CC) supporter, I really
hope that what you're doing here will work !
Me too!
It looks like there are at least 10 millions works realeased under
Creative Commons (according to Yahoo a
On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 15:31 -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
I haven't talked to Greg Pomerantz (SPI's lawyer) yet (he's on
vacation) but I'd like to bring him in and probably onto the group
that talks to Lessig.
I think this sounds excellent but might be complicated.
If you can pass along a
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 08:31:20 -0400 Evan Prodromou wrote:
So in summary, I think that 10 million is pure fiction.
Maybe or maybe not.
I'm not saying that those data should be trusted, nor am I saying that
they shouldn't.
/According/ to that statistical results, we can say that...
Does it
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 20:13:09 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 12:43:35AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
[...]
No-one has posted a good definition
of documentation which doesn't include some programs, for
example.
Agreed.
... and nobody has posted solid rationale explaining why
quote who=MJ Ray date=2005-03-31 20:01:27 +
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
quote who=3DMJ Ray date=3D2005-03-30 22:15:15 +
[...] I'm not sure
about the situation when they just link to the ambiguous page
which has had clarifications issued in obscure places by CC
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 12:16:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
No we don't. There's huge chunks of X under licenses like that without
us having obtained any clarification.
I doubt the accuracy of that, but regardless, if there are, it's just
Francesco Poli wrote:
Hi Thomas!
ciao Franceso
I suppose you are reading Barak Pearlmutter's DFSG FAQ
(http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), right?
yes, it is a faq in debian.org, although in a personal page.
Should I not consider that faq?
[...]
The main point you seem to miss is that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose you are reading Barak Pearlmutter's DFSG FAQ
(http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), right?
yes, it is a faq in debian.org, although in a personal page.
Should I not consider that faq?
You should consider it as the opinion of a debian-legal contributor,
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 08:22:29PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose you are reading Barak Pearlmutter's DFSG FAQ
(http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), right?
yes, it is a faq in debian.org, although in a personal page.
Should I not consider that faq?
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose you are reading Barak Pearlmutter's DFSG FAQ
(http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), right?
yes, it is a faq in debian.org, although in a personal page.
Should I not consider that faq?
You should consider it as
I cover the FAQ question in reply to Marco d'Itri. Other questions:
Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote: [...]
Well, as a matter of fact, authors always have absolute freedom to
choose the license they like for their own works. [...example...]
Am I (the author) free in
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 12:43:35AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Compromise opportunity: I would want a pretty unambiguous
description of when to use anything weaker than the DFSG. At
least, it should avoid letting any programs which don't
follow DFSG into main. No-one has posted a good definition
of
I see nothing other than an appeal to a silent majority. Do you really
want me to post the lurker song? You're getting awfully close.
Anyway, no points to answer; my previous mail stands.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `'
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 07:34:15PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
According to http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5293
there are already at least 10 million works published under a CC
license.
I'm really suspicious of their numbers. According to
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:10:24AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I see nothing other than an appeal to a silent majority. Do you really
want me to post the lurker song? You're getting awfully close.
Anyway, no points to answer; my previous mail stands.
Evading Matthew's counterarguments
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:10:24AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I see nothing other than an appeal to a silent majority. Do you really
want me to post the lurker song? You're getting awfully close.
Anyway, no points to
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 04:00:46AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
You're claiming, as far as I can tell, that any license that can be twisted
in a non-free way is categorically non-free.
No.
http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20050324.html
You can't just say no. When you
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:26:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The same phrase appears in several other licenses that we consider free.
Your argument appears to be that we should consider those licenses
non-free because the words can be interpreted
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 12:16:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:26:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The same phrase appears in several other licenses that we consider free.
Your argument appears to be that we should
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then we should still ask CC to make reasonable adjustments to
stop encouraging them, or to actually enforce the trademark and
stop people describing these licences as CC-by (or whatever)
instead of leaving it to us to mop up. It's not that hard to
Sure, I see nothing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm following this thread -and some other- but is not so easy to
understand it completely - right now I am studying the desert island
test...;-)
There are better ways to spend you time, these tests are not based on
the DFSG and so are not much relevant.
I don't know if
quote who=MJ Ray date=2005-03-30 22:15:15 +
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, if we treat this as a freedom issue in situations where the
licensor has created a new version that does not include the
comment/bounding box and/or where we have reason to believe the
licensor
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This not a theory. This is practical experience. This is why pine is
not free.
The awkward phrase in the pine license is:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
documentation for any purpose and without fee to the
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm following this thread -and some other- but is not so easy to
understand it completely - right now I am studying the desert island
test...;-)
There are better ways to spend you time, these tests are not based on
the DFSG and
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
quote who=3DMJ Ray date=3D2005-03-30 22:15:15 +
[...] I'm not sure
about the situation when they just link to the ambiguous page
which has had clarifications issued in obscure places by CC (along
with statements relying on the US view of fair
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:22:13 +0200 Thomas wrote:
I've been recently contacted by two people belonging to Creative
Commons Italy staff, regarding your draft summary.
Hi, I am one of those guys, thomas of curse
Hi Thomas!
We began a three-party discussion (in italian): I was hoping
On 31 Mar 2005 00:56:10 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point -at least for me- is to figure out if others agree.
Some of the main opinion against this point are that dfsg are
directed to software and cc are not.
I'm not familiar with Italian, but at least in some
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, but if it's included in the licence by a licensor who considers it
part of the licence, clearly your we all know is false.
Then this licensor is using a different license which is not a CC
license. It's not that hard.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, but if it's included in the licence by a licensor who considers it
part of the licence, clearly your we all know is false.
Then this licensor is using a different license which is not a CC
license. It's not that hard.
Then we
quote who=MJ Ray date=2005-03-29 19:07:01 +
If the licensor includes that term in the copyright conditions for
the work, I don't think that CC's opinion matters much, unless they
are granting an unrestricted royalty-free trademark
permission. After all, the copyright licensor could include
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, if we treat this as a freedom issue in situations where the
licensor has created a new version that does not include the
comment/bounding box and/or where we have reason to believe the
licensor feels that this is in fact part of the license, but do
Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point -at least for me- is to figure out if others agree.
Some of the main opinion against this point are that dfsg are directed
to software and cc are not.
I'm not familiar with Italian, but at least in some other languages,
this opinion has been motivated
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 02:09:58PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
quote who=doug jensen date=2005-03-28 05:42:49 -0700
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 03:31:01PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
quote who=[EMAIL PROTECTED] date=2005-03-27 13:37:20 -0500
Now, agreed, stuff that's not part of the
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is ALLCAPS NOT A PART OF THE LICENSE,
...in an HTML comment...
Only because it's graphically separated, by color and inside a box,
when the HTML is rendered. The HTML comment is trying to make explicit
in the source what is already explicit in the
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [CC trademark clause]
It is explicit in the source of the page and it's explicit (although
not necessary universally unambiguous) in the graphical visualization
that 99+% of people reading the page see. CC has explained clearly
their position and we
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 03:31:01PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
quote who=[EMAIL PROTECTED] date=2005-03-27 13:37:20 -0500
Now, agreed, stuff that's not part of the license shouldn't matter.
But it's really, really difficult to tell that the overreaching
language in the trademark
doug jensen wrote:
I cannot see anything indicating that the Creative Commons
trademark paragraph is not part of the license, when looking at it in
a text browser[1]. In a graphical browser the entire section quoted
above has a box around it. My first thought was that that section was
being
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can Creative Commons
fix the confusing parts of the license?
No, because no matter how much some people pretend to be confused, the
trademark stuff is still *not part of the license*!
Now, a more useful question would be can creative commons fix the
license web page?, and
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
quote who=doug jensen date=2005-03-28 05:42:49 -0700
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 03:31:01PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
I don't think it is quite good enough that Creative Commons
understands what they mean, if the users of the license don't
understand as well.
It is explicit
[I am continually amazed by the amount of effort that people will
exert to avoid fixing bugs, even when that effort exceeds the amount
required to fix the bug]
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 05:27:57PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
There are two areas where I think the write-up is a little more
quote who=Evan Prodromou date=2005-03-27 12:01:55 -0500
There are two areas where I think the write-up is a little more
harsh/extreme than it should be (this is a critique that has been
passed to me through SPI's lawyer and others who have looked at an
earlier draft).
I'm surprised by
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general we should distinguish the types of problems we have with
the license and separate them into a few categories:
Good work. Thank you for trying to add some sanity.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
quote who=[EMAIL PROTECTED] date=2005-03-27 13:37:20 -0500
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 05:27:57PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
In general we should distinguish the types of problems we have with
the license and separate them into a few categories:
- Real limitations on freedom that seem
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 02:13:46 +0100 Lewis Jardine wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:27:57 -0500 Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
[anti-DRM clause]
In terms of suggesting a textual fix, how about:
You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
publicly
Henri Sivonen wrote:
You do not have to provide a copy of the Work or the Derivative Work to
everyone, but when you do provide a copy to someone, you must not take
measures the circumvention of which would be both illegal in the
supported jurisdictions and required for exercising the rights
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 12:30:20PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
It is entirely possible that some licensor could go to court and say
I used the CC licenses in the belief that this was prohibited, and
with the intent to prohibit it. There is nothing to use in defence
against this.
On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 12:21 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
I think it is in the spirit of the Creative Commons licenses not to
require a transparent copy for editing.
That's true. However, for a work to be DFSG-free, source code must be
supplied.
Therefore, I think it would be wrong to fix
Scripsit Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 12:21 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
I think it is in the spirit of the Creative Commons licenses not to
require a transparent copy for editing.
That's true. However, for a work to be DFSG-free, source code must be
supplied.
I apologize to be jumping in this at such a late stage. :)
quote who=Evan Prodromou date=2005-03-18 14:28:24 -0500
Hi, everyone. At long last, I've made some final revisions to the draft
summary of the Creative Commons 2.0 licenses. The main changes have
been:
* Additional phrasing
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:27:57 -0500 Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
[anti-DRM clause]
In terms of suggesting a textual fix, how about:
You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures
that control access or use of
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:27:57 -0500 Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
[anti-DRM clause]
In terms of suggesting a textual fix, how about:
You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures
that control access
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:28:24PM -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote:
Hi, everyone. At long last, I've made some final revisions to the draft
summary of the Creative Commons 2.0 licenses. The main changes have
been:
Thanks for doing this. I read it carefully and it's a very nice document.
I think
Hello everybody :-)
I won't interfere long here since I don't normaly post on this list and
legal issues are not my strong point anyway (fortunately your here).
As both a Debian-Ubuntu and Creative Commons (CC) supporter, I really
hope that what you're doing here will work !
I just wanted to
On Mar 20, 2005, at 00:58, Per Eric Rosén wrote:
Could it be like this: if you give someone the work in a form (not
preferred for editing|not allowing you to exec your rights in this
licence), you shall also give them the unrestricted work, or a written
offer valid for at least 3 years? I mean;
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
With the exception of the proposed fix for the DRM language (my problems
with it have been pointed out by others), I support this summary and
strongly encourage Creative Commons to resolve these issues.
Subject: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0
Scripsit Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4. **Allow distribution of rights-restricted copies of works if
unrestricted copies are also made available.** The following
modified version of the anti-DRM clause in section 4a may be a
good starting point.
You may not distribute,
IANDD, but:
Could it be like this: if you give someone the work in a form (not
preferred for editing|not allowing you to exec your rights in this
licence), you shall also give them the unrestricted work, or a written
offer valid for at least 3 years? I mean; isn't this very analogous to the
66 matches
Mail list logo
