Francesco Poli escribe:
As I previously stated (in this same thread), my personal opinion on
CC-v3.0 licenses is that they fail to meet the DFSG. Other people
disagree with me, though.
Maybe a big part of the problem is that licenses which are ok for
documentation or software works are not ok
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:41:12 +0100 Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
Francesco Poli escribe:
As I previously stated (in this same thread), my personal opinion on
CC-v3.0 licenses is that they fail to meet the DFSG. Other people
disagree with me, though.
Maybe a big part of the problem is
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:35:57 -0500 Evan Prodromou wrote:
[...]
That includes the amended revocation and
attribution clauses that Francesco is concerned with; we thought they
were sufficiently softened that they were not an effective prevention
of licensors exercising their freedom.
A
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:21:34 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
[...] I also believe that a large number of debian-legal
participants have said that the DRM clause, as it stands, is free
enough to allow distribution under DRM if such DRM is not
effective
On Fri, Mar 9, 2007 at 08:34:30 +0100, Mathieu Stumpf wrote:
Great, there are 996 songs under CC-by (2.0+2.5) if I just look at
dogmazic.net.
CC-* before 3.0 are non-free, CC-by 3.0 is probably ok, IIRC.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Julien Cristau escribe:
CC-* before 3.0 are non-free
Why exactly!?
pgpQT25CqkVgT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Mar 9, 2007 at 13:41:35 +0100, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
Julien Cristau escribe:
CC-* before 3.0 are non-free
Why exactly!?
See http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary (this is about 2.0, but I
think the same problems apply to 2.5).
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Well, all that is great, but what should I understand with all that, is
there no license under which I can find songs that debian would accept
in the main repository?
Please make a short and clear answer. :)
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My opinion is based on the contribution of debian-legal participants, of
the workgroup participants, and of my own review of the licenses.
I don't doubt that. However, that's still your opinion rather than the
Workgroup's. I don't mean anything bad by that.
Mathieu Stumpf escribe:
Well, all that is great, but what should I understand with all that, is
there no license under which I can find songs that debian would accept
in the main repository?
AFAIK CC-by would allow it.
Please make a short and clear answer. :)
Hopefully mine is. :)
Great, there are 996 songs under CC-by (2.0+2.5) if I just look at
dogmazic.net.
Thank you, that's a clear answer. Now I can go ahead! :)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
In his role as DPL, that same ftp-master (or archive maintainer, if
you prefer) has endorsed [2] the Debian Creative Commons Workgroup
which opined [3] that the CCPL 3.0 is suitable for Debian main. [...]
I think [3]'s the opinion of the Workgroup
On Tue, 2007-06-03 at 10:06 +, MJ Ray wrote:
In his role as DPL, that same ftp-master (or archive maintainer, if
you prefer) has endorsed [2] the Debian Creative Commons Workgroup
which opined [3] that the CCPL 3.0 is suitable for Debian main. [...]
I think [3]'s the opinion of the
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 00:32:44 + Andrew Saunders wrote:
On 3/5/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as CC-v3.0 are concerned, my personal opinion should be clear
from the message[2] that you yourself cite: I don't think that any
CC-v3.0 license meets the DFSG. Other people
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 12:42:49 +0100 Mathieu Stumpf wrote:
Okay, I'm planning to make some maps for stepmanie[1], but I would
like to map songs that will have no legal problem to be include in
Debian.
I really appreciate that you thought about this aspect *before* doing
all the work (that is to
On 3/5/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as CC-v3.0 are concerned, my personal opinion should be clear
from the message[2] that you yourself cite: I don't think that any
CC-v3.0 license meets the DFSG. Other people disagree with me, though.
You didn't find any final answer
16 matches
Mail list logo
