On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 12:06:25PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > I'm writing because I've just been made aware of this summary of the > Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 license: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00031.html > > Let me first note that Creative Commons uses a suite of licenses, with > a number of mix-and-match license elements (Attribution, ShareAlike, > NonCommercial, NoDerivatives). So any CC license that would require > Attribution would also fall under this analysis. Right, the CC licenses are generally known to be a collection of non-free licenses. > Conditions on modification are, of course, a matter of degree. No, actually, they are matters of form. Not degree. Unacceptable forms will always be unacceptable regardless of how large or small the relevant restriction is. > Let me note here that, although the Open Source Definition is not > identical to the DFSG, the OSI has approved a few licenses that have > equivalent or greater attribution requirements. Yes, OSI does approve of some licenses which we do not. This is not new. They require less freedom than Debian. > So, that's my feedback. I'd like to know what can be done to amend the > analysis and re-open this license (as well as Attribution 2.0, > ShareAlike 1.0, and Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 and 2.0) for > consideration. We've done these to death already, starting in 2003. They're non-free. That won't change. Future versions of the licenses will be considered the same as any license. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature