On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 08:56:15 +0100 "Toby Smithe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Cory K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is one place where there is sometimes a difference in > > Debian/Ubuntu. I've seen quite a bit of CC items go into Ubuntu. > > All the Ubuntu Studio art for one. Tango I believe is another case. > > > > I think it depends on the specific CC license. > > Look here: [0] > > My first guess was that the only problem would be with Non-Commercial, > which doesn't give all users equal rights to use the software. Would > Canonical be using the package commercially, by providing it in a > distribution with commercial support? The same applies for No > Derivatives. > > However, it seems that there are many more problems with the > BY-attribution licence than with NC, owing to ambiguities and drafting > technicalities, rather than the specific nature of the licence being > incompatible with the goal of the project. > > So, I would recommend against using the CC licences, even if the NC or > ND licence was never to be considered, and even if Ubuntu is more > relaxed on its terms of distribution (for who is really going to start > legal action on Canonical because of a technicality in a licence > that's trying to be Free?), because I'm sure at some point this > package - as opposed to the Ubuntu Studio art - will be distributed by > Debian, too. > > Now, having written all that (damn!), I've just found these sites: > [1][2][3]. This informs me that there is now a version 3 of the > licences, which appears to resolve Debian's issues. It is still not > clear whether a package under version 3 would be accepted, but I am > pretty certain that it would, especially considering that > ubuntustudio-look etc (version 2.5? Not sure what the status of this > is, either...) provided in Ubuntu. > > Considering this is so tentative, I would nonetheless advise against > choosing a CC licence, unless someone wants to write debian-legal to > confirm the status. Choose something more certain! > > I'm keen to hear what the subject of this discussion is: Philipp, are > you creating a new SoundFont? :D > > Have fun, > > Toby > > [0] http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html > [1] http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3 > [2] > http://evan.prodromou.name/Debian_Creative_Commons_Workgroup_report > [3] http://diveintomark.org/archives/2007/07/05/cc-debian-continued > Ah, thanks a lot, the info I found about incompatibility was about version 2.0 and I didn't check what was latest. It's great news. We will try to sample a Mellotron in a few hours, which should end up as a soundfont. The problem we have is that we don't own the Instrument. One of us would even pay a little to be able to sample the Instrument, but not much. We'll try to find out what the Instruments owner thinks about what we are planing to do (release under a 'free' license) and offer him some options regarding licensing. Having the choice of cc is a clear benefit there. Thanks for the help again, I'll tell you guys if we were successful. -Philipp -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
