Re: better licence for fosdem, debconf, .., videos...

[MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop>]

Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>
> I'm puzzled: how can you say that "Bob had no part in the *derived*
> work"?

He took no part in creating the new work from it.

> Does Linus Torvalds have no part in linux-image-2.6-*.deb? Debian Linux
> kernels are different from official kernel.org ones, but that doesn't
> mean that upstream have no part in them!

I don't think Linus Torvalds helps create the deb packaging. One can say
it contains his work, but "kernel-image-2.6.8-2-386.deb by the Debian
kernel team and Linus Torvalds" may not be a strictly accurate credit.
I think this may be part of the reason for the particular wording of the
old BSD ad clause.

> Or am I misreading what you wrote?

Maybe.

> > CC-Scotland-by-2.5 is an acceptable licence that corrects the DFSG
> > failures of CC-generic-by-2.5.
> 
> I have to disagree.

OK.

> At the very least (even if we conclude that requiring to remove credit
> upon request is acceptable), CC-by-2.5/scotland still has the following
> other issues:
> 
> * the "any comparable authorship credit" lawyerbomb
> * the "sue me in Scotland" problem
> 
> I strongly suggest to adopt clearly DFSG-free licenses that don't have
> issues in the first place, rather than choosing a license with more or
> less small issues that must be cured.

I agree with that advice. Some licensors have drunk CC deeply and will
not move, so I suggest that CC-sco is a possible compromise route
until a fixed CC 3.x is finally published.

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct