Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Debian and Creative Commons

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Clive Menzies <clive AT clivemenzies.co.uk>
  • To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Cc: evan AT debian.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Debian and Creative Commons
  • Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:33:27 +0100

On (11/10/06 18:34), Terry Hancock wrote:
> That was one major goal of the 3.0 revision. I think it's important to
> a lot of people.
>
> IMHO, we're already there on the CC side, and the remaining problem is
> with misinterpretation and politics on the Debian side. There are a few
> people who seem determined that anything CC comes up with isn't good
> enough, and there are others who don't seem to have had time to analyze
> the problem carefully enough.
>
> But I think we have to remember that we're fighting for the ideal of a
> Free Commons, not for organizations like Creative Commons, the Free
> Software Foundation, or the Debian Project. If Debian jumps off a
> cliff, I don't want to see Creative Commons follow -- at least not
> without some pretty serious independent thought on the matter.
>
> And CC is not alone. The FSF "anti-tivoization" stand is creating the
> same requirement that CC is asking for: both have taken a strong stand
> against TPM/DRM. I think Debian needs to follow suit at this point,
> rather than pursuing its current anti-copyleft stance.
>
> It has to be realized of course that Debian has not had a referendum on
> this point -- CCPL3.0 (By, By-SA) may be accepted as-is, and I believe
> it should be, because all "use" restrictions have been lifted and there
> is no "discrimination against fields of endeavor" in the sense that is
> intended in the DFSG.

Thanks for the explanation. I confess to a certain lack of intellectual
rigour in firing off the request. It was in response to a message
circulated in the Debian community.

AIUI a Debian working group has been working to ensure CCPL3.0 complies
with DFSG and that good progress has been made. However, the license
draft now available leaves out some key clauses that the workgroup
thought necessary to make the license DFSG-compatible.

I haven't had time to study this in detail and perhaps I ought to. Is
the basis of dispute documented somewhere in digestible form?

Regards

Clive

--
www.clivemenzies.co.uk ...
...strategies for business






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page