* Brian M. Carlson: > Actually, the Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike Licenses from > Creative Commons are not DFSG-free. See the summary on debian-legal > [0].
> [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00031.html This is a different license, version 1.0 of the Attribution license. The current version 2.0 of the Attribution Share-Alike license does not seem to have those problems. > It would probably work best if you just licensed the docs under the > same license as the code. The CC license actually grants *more* rights (with respect to dissemination etc.) than the source code license. Why should Sleepycat use a more restrictive license? > If you do insist in licensing under the Attribution Share-Alike license, > then Debian will not be able to distribute the documentation, which is > a shame, considering that I use them plenty. Not so fast. We still can make a case-by-case decision, as suggested in <http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg00121.html>.
