Why do you have to chose the "Attribution" option with the new CC 2.0 Licenses?
robmyers at mac.com
Mon Aug 16 18:04:25 EDT 2004
On 16 Aug 2004, at 22:49, evan at wikitravel.org wrote:
> I'm well aware of why _Debian_ thinks the licenses are non-free. I
> wanted to
> hear another opinion.
Sorry. Dont know what I was thinking.
> The problems are mostly due to vaguenesses in the wording of the
> There are places where the apparent intent is Free, but the wording
> could be interpreted as putting non-free restrictions. If those can be
> corrected in the future, I think Debian would call by and by-sa Free.
For me personally, Free means GPL-compatible (I know, I know... :-) ).
Which would be CC-SA, I think. BSD would be CC, wouldn't it?
By the FSF's "Free Software" definition:
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html , I think that licenses with
NC and ND in would be non-Free. And since none of the licenses require
providing source, none of them meet this precondition and so none are
Free Software licenses. :-)
More information about the cc-licenses