"Chris Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
The DRM/TPM-ban is a more serious problem, but I'm so sick of being told that CC licences don't mean what the words mean that I've largely given up suggesting that CC-by and CC-SA should be useful for free software. The generic licences are too complicated for most uses and the area licences all have different features and potential bugs. The bouncing-email-consultations and the text-in-PDF replies made it difficult, but when debates get to the level of "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" (see the non-commercial confusion for another example), I give up. I suspect that the response of CC to any controversial issue would be to fudge, rather than lead debate towards any consensus. If someone wants to test that theory, go try to get an anti-fascist clause into 3.1. However, FDL-1.2 was special-cased into debian, so maybe CC 3.0 will be too, or maybe the DRM/TPM-ban isn't a DRM/TPM-ban after all, like the DReaM people seemed to think. Bah! -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Webmaster/web developer, statistician, sysadmin, trainer, koha dev, online shop maker, GNU/Linux, debian, gobo, gnustep, mailing lists. Workers co-op @ Weston-super-Mare, Somerset http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
