Re: Prefered License for forums content
Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> writes:
>
>> Recall that the Creative Commons Attribution license was ruled to be
>> DFSG-non-free by debian-legal (initial review request at
>>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200403/msg00267.html
>> , final summary at
>
>
>>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200404/msg00031.html
>
>
> "When any Licensor asks, all references to their name(s) must be purged
> from the work. This restricts modification (DFSG 3)."
>
> This is an unalienable moral right in most of Europe.
No, it isn't. Or, anyway, I sure as hell hope not.
Let me state this simply and clearly.
If I state in my work, which is a derivative of RMS's, "I disagree with RMS
about XXXX", or "RMS founded the FSF", where does he get off demanding that
I remove his name?
> If this is DFSG
> non-free, then Debian has a serious problem, because then is it
> logically impossible to have a license that is compatible with the DFSG
> and European Law at the same time.
>
>
>> The by-sa license is likely to be non-free as well for the same
>> reasons.
> If people think that, we don't they express their opinion about it on
> the relevant mailinglist, namely cc-licenses@lists.ibiblio.org?
I thought that was an alias to /dev/null, for all the responses I got from
the request to change the HTML pages so that it was clear that the
trademark stuff wasn't part of the license.
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: