On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 00:42 +0100, John-Mark Bell wrote: > > I *STRONGLY* disagree with various of the aims of GPLv3 as it currently > > sits in draft form and thus I would only be happy with the removal of > > the 'or...later...' from the statement in each file. > GPLv3 was formally released on June 29th. Am I correct in thinking the > released version does not address your concerns?
I've not read the formally released version yet, I should go and do so. However until I have read it, I am against allowing the or any later version clause. > >> 5) There is no explicit licensing of related artwork. > > Having this as CC-by-SA seems to make sense, although I am quite > > prepared to accept MIT for them. > My overriding concern when suggesting a licence for the artwork was DFSG > compliance. The opinion I have formed from everything I've read from > Debian on this is that none of the CC licences are acceptable, though > there's still a little dispute over this. (There's also an impact on using > imagery within the application itself; if the imagery isn't licensed in a > GPL compatible manner then, afaics, it cannot be used, as using it within > the application goes well beyond "mere aggregation"). Personally, I don't > care, but I'd rather not have to have another licensing change at a later > date. Reasonable argument. MIT makes sense then. I should really bug my friendly debian-legal people into sorting out the CC licences and accepting them as DFSG free. D. -- Daniel Silverstone http://www.digital-scurf.org/ PGP mail accepted and encouraged. Key Id: 2BC8 4016 2068 7895
