On Mon, 2006-14-08 at 01:43 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > As usual, please feel free to forward any of my words to CC. I'm very busy > and probably won't manage to do so myself.
Saying it yourself is a huge benefit. > Reviewing the license, everything we were originally worried about appears > to have been fixed (with the possible exception of the DRM business), and > no new problems seem to have been introduced. It all looks DFSG-free to > me, with the exception of "keep intact", noted below. Yes. > The "keep intact" phraseology is still present, and still mildly > troublesome: > "You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and > to the disclaimer of warranties." Don Armstrong noticed this too, and we made a note of it, but it was pretty mild. The wording is almost directly lifted from the GPLv2, section 1: You may copy and distribute verbatim copies [...], provided that you [...] keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; [...] It's hard to say that some particular wording is incompatible with the DFSG if it's in other accepted licenses. > I hate to bring this up at the "last minute", but it would be a definite > improvement to replace "notices" with "legal notices" in this clause, or to > do something similar to clarify it. Feel free to bring it up. > > The changes from the 2.x version are largely due to an effort to make > > the licenses compatible with the DFSG. > > Congrats folks! Congrats yourself! Your analysis and suggestions on the 2.0 licenses were extremely important in getting us to this point, and they're greatly appreciated. > Commented in another post.... if it really prohibited parallel > distribution, I would think it's non-free -- but I think it does *not* > prohibit parallel distribution. So I think it *is* free. Yeah, I'd like to believe that. Now, here's the funny part: if the board and the international affiliates of CC vigorously opposed the idea of parallel distribution and had a clause explicitly permitting it removed from the license, can we reasonably assume that the license as it stands still allows parallel distribution? ~Evan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]