[cc-licenses] PROCEDURAL SUGGESTION
Terry Hancock
hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Wed Oct 4 11:15:54 EDT 2006
Paul Keller wrote:
> do you think this a somewhat reasonable summary of the discussion so
> far?
So basically, you're tired of listening to the discussion, and want to
call for a vote? ;-)
I can't speak for what the balance is, but for myself, I have to agree
with your summary.
* The anti-TPM language license should remain as it is
* EXCEPT: the ability of a user to apply TPM to a private copy should be
clarified (apparently this is already legal), by applying the anti-TPM
rule only to distribution (I understand this is already conceded)
* Debian really ought to re-think the parallel distribution idea for its
own reasons, because it wouldn't perform as advertised (IOW, it really
isn't "DFSG Free" after all)
* There's always 3.1 if it turns out that Debian is right and we're wrong
N.B.: this is really only as regards CC-By-SA. The position is much
weaker with respect to CC-By, and apparently irrelevant to more
restrictive CC licenses (Debian doesn't care about them, potential
anti-TPM monopolies defeated by NC anyway, etc -- it winds up not
mattering one way or the other for them).
If it matters, this is not the position I started from, so I'm a "swing
voter". ;-)
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list