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 23:04:25 +0100

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 licenses.
There are places where the apparent intent is Free, but the wording used
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. :-)

- Rob.

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