[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - Public Discussion
email at greglondon.com
Sun Aug 13 09:22:17 EDT 2006
You previously accused me of playing political games
with the license, using it as a way of "Fighting DRM",
at the expense of what's good for the license.
But this, this is political games in popularity.
You're arguing to change the license to make it
more popular, not to make it best for the people
who need the protection of a solid license.
argument ad populum.
> On Wed, 2006-09-08 at 14:21 -0700, Mia Garlick wrote:
>> Consequently, CC is currently not proposing to include this new
>> parallel distribution language as part of version 3.0; however,
>> because it is not clear whether the Debian community will declare the
>> CC licenses DFSG-free without it and because it represents an
>> interesting proposal, we felt that it was appropriate to circulate
>> the proposal as part of the public discussions of version 3.0.
> I wanted to address this part of the issue.
> As longtime members of this mailing list know, the fact that
> CCPL-licensed works aren't allowed in Debian has cast a poor light on
> the licenses, especially among members of the Free Software community.
> Getting the "Debian stamp of approval" will definitely help the profile
> of the licenses and the project among this very natural constituency.
> After the 3.0 licenses are finalized, and works licensed under them are
> candidates for inclusion in Debian, the project will come to a decision
> on whether the works will be allowed in the distribution.
> As Mia pointed out, the standing of anti-DRM clauses in licenses is
> still murky within the Debian project. If there is a parallel
> distribution language in the 3.0 licenses, I'm almost 100% sure that
> Attribution 3.0 and Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0-licensed works will be
> allowed in Debian. If there is not parallel distribution language, then
> I am optimistic but far less sure.
> So, please consider whether the problems you have with parallel
> distribution are worth blowing this opportunity. Debian and Creative
> Commons will probably never again be able to muster the time and effort
> that we have over the last 18 months to make things work.
> And I also doubt that Free Software advocates will look kindly on a
> project that had a chance to make their licenses compatible with the
> DFSG, but decided not to.
> I'd appreciate it if people would factor this into their decisions.
> Evan Prodromou -- http://evan.prodromou.name/
> "By God! I will accept nothing which all cannot have their counterpart
> of on the same terms." -- Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself"
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP laws
Wikipedia and the Great Sneetches War
More information about the cc-licenses