<quote who="Evan Prodromou" date="2005-03-27 12:01:55 -0500"> > On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 17:27 -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > > I've actually gone over an earlier draft of this text with a > > representative of CC and have been having conversations on and off > > about potential fixes to the licenses. I'd love to have some part > > in the discussions. > > I'd like to include you, too. I think our message will be clearer if > it's understood that we're all on Team Debian. If some of us are > talking to one group at CC, and you're saying something different to > another group, I think that's going to send mixed messages. Well, I was talking to Cory Doctorow and it was some point last year. I think, at this point, he's not even working for CC anymore. We went over the points in an earlier draft so I don't think there was a different point being represented. > It's also not clear at all that Creative Commons drafted any of its > licenses with the explicit intent that works available under the > license be DFSG-free. Yes. They know about us and it's certainly a nice-to-have on their list but I know nobody sat down with the DFSG, their licenses, and a fine tooth comb to make sure everything was worked out. :) > I don't think we can read any of the problem areas and say, "...but > since we know that they were aiming to have this license be applied > to Free Software, we can assume that they're just being clumsy in > what they're saying." I agree. > All that aside, I would hate for the _language_ of the summary to > cast aspersions on Creative Commons or the licenses. I know that > there are a lot of loaded terms ("free" and "non-free" being two > main culprits) that may sound unfair. I don't want to alienate > anyone unnecessarily. In the case of content (i.e., "non-software") licenses, this can be particularly problematic since the license authors may not be familiar with a lot of free software terminology that we take for granted. > My wife says about debian-legal, "It sounds like you are the white > hat hackers of Free Software licenses. You find the security holes > in the licenses before the bad guys do." I thought that this was a > pretty good analogy. People get real mad at white hats, too. It's > not nice to be told that your software has a bug, nor that your > license does, but it's a necessary function. Absolutely. As I said to Andrew, I think it also helps to remember that this isn't the same as source code and the the nature of bugs is somewhat different. It's, for lack of a better word, fuzzier. Contracts are interpreted by people and, ultimately, by people who are judges and things like reasonable expectations, intent, and good/bad faith that don't make sense in the source code metaphor are central aspects in law and licensing. I think we are sometimes guilty of giving these less weight than we should. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill mako@debian.org http://mako.yukidoke.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature