Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ITYM "Francesco Poli won't stop crapflooding debian-legal with his > dissenting view about the freeness of CC by-SA 3.0, making it ever harder to > find relevant posts like > <http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/08/msg00262.html> and > <http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/08/msg00120.html> that show > there's no compelling reason to interpret CC by-SA 3.0 as non-free, > *unfortunately*".
ITYM "I'm now posting ad-hominem attacks". OK, Francesco Poli could post a bit shorter and mainly link back to old posts by him and others on this, but mentioning the dissent isn't itself harmful. FWIW, my TPM position(s): - Anti-TPM clauses break the DFSG. - GPLv3 is a this-is-not-a-TPM-legally clause instead, so is fine. - The CC-3.0 TPM clause is confusing and may not be an anti-TPM clause - see http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/ip/20061115-00.html and http://wiki.mako.cc/ParallelDistribution and maybe even http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/cc#tpmcc - CC point-blank refuse to answer questions, which makes me suspicious and so I recommend avoiding their licences for that reason. I'm fine with them being in main if the project is happy to take the risk. - the FDL GR is irrational, but valid. - I want to see a right of 'fair circumvention' in copyright laws. - Oxygen is good. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]