Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
- To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
- From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@fastmail.fm>
- Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:13:03 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] eemukf$tfe$2@sea.gmane.org>
- References: <1155223573.6162.198.camel@zhora.1481ruerachel.net> <20060820090613.GB18213@mauritius.dodds.net> <20060821215357.1181b9f2.frx@firenze.linux.it> <20060822173708.GA16775@mauritius.dodds.net> <20060823232748.48f96dea.frx@firenze.linux.it> <20060824191018.13F82F6568@nail.towers.org.uk> <ed5ftu$uu1$2@sea.gmane.org> <20060831103708.04B45F6C83@nail.towers.org.uk>
MJ Ray wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <neroden@fastmail.fm>
>> Where's the cc-nl lead's explanation? It's something.
>
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003876.html
>
> Hope that helps,
It really does help a lot.
"in any case i do not think (and that judgment was
shared by a number of other project leads) that these fringe
scenarios are a good reason to make the licenses more complicated"
The main motivation was to prevent license complication,
*not* to prohibit parallel distribution.
This is emphasized quite clearly in that message.
Therefore I conclude that we can interpret that CC3.0 draft
means what it says and parallel distribution is OK.
--
Nathanael Nerode <neroden@fastmail.fm>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
Reply to: