On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 15:47, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-06 20:15:25 +0100 Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org> wrote:
>
> > included the three main arguments why Attribution 2.0 is non-free
>
> At least in this context, we should say instead that software released
> under it alone will not be free software.
A good point, and one I understand clearly. I may have been sloppy in
the summary, but I'll make sure it's clear in the final version.
> As keeps getting claimed in cc-licenses, the trademark restrictions
> usually included as the end of a CC licence are not supposed to be
> part of the licence.
I put a note about that in the summary.
> > I know that the anti-DRM clause in the GFDL was a cause of problems.
> > I'm
> > worried that this loosely-phrased clause may be one, too.
>
> Looks like a lawyerbomb to me. Without more information on its
> meaning, I wouldn't say anything other than "could be clearer" unless
> pushed. If pushed, I'd probably say that software covered by this term
> isn't free software.
Thanks. OK, I gotta nuther one.
Section 4a) allows the author to forbid reference to the user. Section
4b) requires authorship credit.
If the author uses the revocation clause, it's not explicitly stated
that the licensee is absolved of the requirements in 4b). In other
words:
~Attribution -> ~Distribution
RevocationRequest -> ~Attribution
Thus,
RevocationRequest -> ~Distribution
There are some hedges in 4b) -- the author's name only has to be give
"if supplied". But it's not explicit, and I think having a licensor able
to effectively revoke the license at will would make it non-free.
Am I nuts?
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou <evan@wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel (http://wikitravel.org/)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part