"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 know that they are not trying to pull one on > us. This is sloppiness, not non-freeness.
A CC representative has equally clearly explained that they are unwilling to fix this problem. So, we end up trying to fix symptoms not problems and the hype around CC means that there are *lots* of symptoms. CC is being inconsiderate, in my opinion. > Are you really arguing that a piece of text that we all know is not a > part of the license renders the license itself non-free? 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. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
