Charles Plessy <[email protected]> writes: > Le Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 01:19:23PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit : >> On 01/25/2013 10:41, Charles Plessy wrote: >> > Le Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:16:24AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit : >> >> On 13102 March 1977, Christoph Egger wrote: >> >>>> Alternatively, if we can not find a significant difference of freedom >> >>>> between >> >>>> CC BY 2.5, and CC BY 2.0, how about accepting CC BY 2.0 in Debian ? >> >> >> >> We don't want 2.5 in main, we want 3.0. So why? >> > >> > Sorry, I was mislead by the presence of 2.5 in awstats and >> > grub2-splashimages... >> >> I filed bugs[1][2] for these two packages. The icons in awstats are >> even already licensed as CC-BY-SA-3.0[3]. > > There are also moin, netcdf-java, vlc, or wxmaxima, which either have an > inaccurate copyright file or contain files licensed under CC-BY-(SA-)2.5 > (and pinta with by-nc-nd-2.5). > > Note that I have not tried to be exhaustive in my search. > > I have to apologise for netcdf-java as I think I have wrote on Debian Med's > mailing list that the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses 2.5 are suitable for Debian.
Not a good argument, there's also 2.0 in the archive http://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=Attribution-ShareAlike+2.0 Surely some of that is false positives but several look like true hits (like byzanz) Christoph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
