On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 19:08, MJ Ray wrote:
> Numerous people have tried many angles. More are welcome, as we
> clearly haven't found the correct approach yet.
So, I'd like to write a draft summary for the 6 Creative Commons 2.0
licenses:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
Four of them (with NonCommercial or NoDerivatives elements) are clearly
not intended to be DSFG-free. It seems to the untrained eye that the
other two (Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike) are. The problems we
have with these licenses are more or less ones of clarity and wording
rather than intention.
We could hand this over to Creative Commons with some suggested changes,
as well as some information about our project and why having works be
DFSG-free is important.
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part