Hi, btw, kudos for the training sessions and the results from this! (I also agree that publishing the material accompanied with a proper licence is a good thing, also that one licence should be chosen for everything.) On Samstag, 11. Dezember 2010, Francesco Poli wrote: > Well, the FTP masters seem to currently consider CC-by-v3.0 and > CC-by-sa-v3.0 as acceptable licenses for main. No other CC license has > been explicitly considered OK by the FTP masters, AFAICT. > > However some people (most notably the undersigned!) disagree with the > FTP masters on this point: I personally think that even CC-by-v3.0 and > CC-by-sa-v3.0 should be considered as *non-free*. I'd appreciate if you could take your non-free vendetta elsewhere. Debian has decided that CC-3.0-by-sa and CC-3.0-by is free as in DFSG. You're obviously free to think what you want, but people shoud be aware that you're known for extreme POVs on copyright and that you are also not a DD, so you dont really have much to say what Debian considers free or not. Plus there is another free CC variant you didnt mention: http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 > The GFDL has many issues: [..] > I acknowledge that the Project later decided to accept GFDL'ed > works, as long as they don't include unmodifiable parts: [...] > But I disagree with this decision As said above, you're free to have this opinion, and we are free to ignore you and point this out. For Debian matters the GFDL is free if the document released under it contains no invariant sections. cheers, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.