Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] PROCEDURAL SUGGESTION

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] PROCEDURAL SUGGESTION
  • Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 10:15:54 -0500

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page