CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC-BY-SA 4.0 are both DFSG free. CC-BY-SA 2.5 is not.
Any CC license with -NC is nonfree. Thanks! Paul On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Oleksandr Gavenko <gaven...@gmail.com> wrote: > https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses have no conclusion about CC-BY > 3.0/4.0 > licenses. > > My system (up to date testing) already have CC-BY packages: > > $ cat /usr/share/doc/*/copyright | command grep -i ^license:.*CC | sort > | uniq -c > > ... > 10 License: CC-BY > 33 License: CC-BY-3.0 > 1 License: CC-BY-3.0-US > ... > > Most notable application that uses CC-BY-3.0 is Deluge BitTorrent client: > > Files: deluge/deluge/ui/web/icons/* > Copyright: Furgue icons from http://pinvoke.com/ > License: CC-BY-3.0 > > Search in debian-legal list shown that topic question already was asked > several times. Summary is follow: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/04/msg00027.html > My own personal opinion is that CC-by-sa-v4.0 fails to meet the DFSG. > ... > Debian ftp masters seem to disagree with me on CC-v3.0 licenses: they > seem to think that CC-by-sa-v3.0 and CC-by-v3.0 are acceptable for > Debian main. > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/04/msg00032.html > Reading them side-by-side: (CC-BY-SA 3.0 and 4.0) > .... > So it's no worse than 3.0 and I don't remember what I thought of that > :-) > > [2]: https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses > I'll update that now. > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2013/08/msg00015.html > Secondly, it's true that FTP-masters currently accept works licensed > under CC-by-sa-v3.0 and under CC-by-v3.0 into Debian main. > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/01/msg00084.html > AFAICT, the status is as follows: > a) works licensed under the terms of CC-by-v3.0 seem to be currently > accepted by FTP-masters as DFSG-free > b) some people (mostly myself!) disagree with this conclusion and > have > explained their position repeatedly on this list and elsewhere, > but > (unfortunately!) failed to gain consensus > ... > as far as the Debian Project is concerned, is the FTP-masters' one: > they > are the real decision-makers. > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/01/msg00085.html > Re: is CC BY 3.0 DFSG-free, again > I don't know which previous discussions you refer to, but reviewing the > licenses, the *only* difference I see between CC BY 3.0 and CC BY-SA > 3.0 is > that CC BY-SA includes an *additional* restriction relative the CC BY > (the > copyleft requirement). > > Therefore, if CC BY-SA 3.0 is ok, CC BY 3.0 is also ok. > > While I can't find official decision about CC-BY 3.0/4.0 it seems > acceptable > with only complain from single person (see above quotations). > > Main problem with this issue is NEED TO SEARCH OVER MAIL LIST FOR EACH > interested person. I personally spent 1 hour to figure out state of license > (that it currently is acceptable). > > Please may any update https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses page to > describe > current practice for CC-BY 3.0/4.0? > > I can do it myself but afraid edit wars. > > Also I frustrated with docs: > > > https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-short-name > > Why include shortening for CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-ND? Or this abbreviation for > packages from 'non-free' section? > > Please don't remove my CC, as I am not subscribed to list. > > -- > Best regards! > > -- All programmers are playwrights, and all computers are lousy actors. #define sizeof(x) rand() :wq
