<quote who="Chris Morris" date="Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 09:42:12PM -0500"> > Well 3.0 still has 4(a) section for that requires you to remove authorship. > http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode > So I bet it is still DFSG non-free.
Actually, that seems pretty unlikely. The part that you describe was (IIRC) primarily problematic in that it both required authorship requirements *and* let authors forbid it. In effect, you could use the combination of these two to bar any derivatives. If I recall correctly, this was fully addressed in the text of the 3.0 licenses so Debian no longer has an issue with this. The only thing that the Debian/CC working-group did not get complete consensus on was the issue of parallel distribution. I wrote this position statement on that issue but it did not win out in the 3.0 licenses discussion period (so please do not follow-up to the cc-licenses mailing list at this point): http://wiki.mako.cc/ParallelDistribution While I think this the lack of PD clauses is not ideal, I'm pretty sure that it is not a DFSG-freedom issue. The GFDL has a even stronger anti-DRM clause that does not allow for parallel distribution and Debian has explicitly decided that the GFDL (minus certain toggable "invariant" sections) is a free license. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. --RMS _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
