Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Daniel Carrera <dcarrera AT math.umd.edu>]

Greg London wrote:

> I can only hope that common sense hasn't completely left the legal
> system such that this interpretation is possible.

1) There is very little common sense left in the legal system.

2) Whether you and I agree that the restriction is real is not releant for 
this context. The topic at hand is what Debian thinks.  :-)


> I cannot see this being a legitimate problem in any real world
> situation.

Take it up with Debian legal  :-)  I'm just a messenger.


> Declaring FDL non-free because of a license OPTION is
> losing focus of the big picture.

I disagree. Let's go over what we mean by "license XYZ is a free license". 
There are two things we could mean:

1) A work under license XYZ *might* be free to use and modify.
2) A work under license XYZ *is* free to use and modify.

Debian has chosen the first definition. And I think the choice is 
sensible. It is safer, and it is the one that most people will expect 
automatically. That is, if you see a work that says "licensed under XYZ 
which is a free license" you should be able to conclude that you are free 
to use and modify the work.

> > I don't think so. Debian legal doesn't have a problem with attribution.
> > And the copyright notice provides attribution *anyways*.
> 
> CC-Attribution is something above and beyond a copyright notice.

Please don't focus on that second line. It was meant as a sidenote. Debian 
legal told me that attribution per se is not the problem. Please see my 
other email.

Cheers,
-- 
Daniel Carrera          | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today!  | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org   |