cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Re: Why do you have to chose the "Attribution" option with the new CC 2.0 Licenses?

From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: Why do you have to chose the "Attribution" option with the new CC 2.0 Licenses?
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:56:59 +0100

On 16 Aug 2004, at 20:50, evan AT wikitravel.org wrote:

Why do you think that (say) the Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0
licenses are non-free?

http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary :

"debian-legal contributors think that works licensed solely under the
Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license [BY]_ are not free
according to the DFSG and should not be included in Debian."

"debian-legal contributors think that works licensed solely under the
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 [BY-SA]_ are not free according to the DFSG and
should not be included in Debian."

Attribution is a requirement that makes the licenses non-GPL compatible (as a kind of lesser-BSD-advertising-clause *). I don't know what the FSF's position on the "Free as in Freedom"-ness of the licenses is. They do recommend the CC licenses on their site, so I assume this means they are OK by them.

- Rob.

* - Note new watered-down comparison. :-)

Re: Why do you have to chose the "Attribution" option with the new CC 2.0 Licenses? , (continued)