[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