On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:07:38 +0530, Sandip Bhattacharya
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Could you point me to some good references which discusses the issues
> FOSS purists find with Creative Commons, and which you find convincing
> enough?
Foss purists? It does not advance your cause to use loaded
phrases like that; it implies you have much vitriol and little
substance to back your views.
As far as the FSF is concerned, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0
license is a non-copyleft free license, and the Creative Commons
Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 license is a copyleft free license, though
neither of them are good software licenses.
Debian does not consider these licenses as free. If you are
truly interested in why we think so, here is a reference:
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
Hopefully, version 3.0 of CC licenses will be free. We shall
see how that goes.
> As far as non-"freeware" royalty free content is concerned it would
> probably be better to stick to Creative Commons related resources, as
> alternative FOSS licences are both not as popular and neither as
> unambiguous. Just my point of view.
Th relevant issue when peaking in a free software context is not
whether things are no cost, but whether adequate freedoms are
associated with the work.
If all you care about is money, then of course you are
correct. If your interest is in freedom, then what you stated misses
the mark by a mile.
manoj
--
Pardon this fortune. Database under reconstruction.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
_______________________________________________
ilugd mailinglist -- [email protected]
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22/23, 2008
Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
