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
(that is to say, before it's too late...).
So I red some threads but I didn't find any final answer, are CC
3.0[2] (and which one?) and free art license okay with the DFSG[3]?
Regards etc.
[1] http://www.stepmania.com/
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/02/msg00059.html
[3] http
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
Hi debian-legal,
I'm participating in a project that is opening the source of a classic
game (Star Control 2) and porting it to modern operating systems. The
code for the game has already been relicensed under the GPL, but the
game's original authors (who hold copyright) have not yet picked a
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 01:51:59 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven Barker) wrote:
I'd like the advice of this list as to whether data under that license
would be DFSG free. I think the license is a pretty straightforward
copyleft, though at least the translated version has some unclear
language.
On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 02:29, David B Harris wrote:
I don't believe part 7 is saying anything additional to what copyright
law already says; the original author still holds the copyright, even if
you got the data from friend who got the data from a sister who got the
data from an aunt who got
On 14 Dec 2002 03:08:03 -0500
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Part 8, I'm sure, will cause problems - it has in the past, but I
can't remember in what context; it may just be that some zealots
made some hubub a while back that. I don't really recall.
I can't manage to google
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 03:08:03AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Part of 2.2:
- specify to the recipient where he will be able to access
the originals (initial and subsequent). The author of the
original may, if he wishes, give you the right to broadcast /
distribute the
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 01:51:59AM -0500, Steven Barker wrote:
I'm participating in a project that is opening the source of a classic
game (Star Control 2) and porting it to modern operating systems. The
code for the game has already been relicensed under the GPL, but the
game's original
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 02:29:49AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
However, Part 2.1 is a serious concern. You have the right to copy this
work of art of your personal use, for your friends or any other person,
by employing whatever technique you choose. Reading the original
French, this is an
23 matches
Mail list logo
