[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

Scripsit Per Eric Rosén <per@rosnix.net>

> IANDD, but:

Don't worry about that. Much of the grunt work on debian-legal has
always been done by non-DD's.

> Could it be like this: if you give someone the work in a form (not
> preferred for editing|not allowing you to exec your rights in this
> licence), you shall also give them the unrestricted work, or a written
> offer valid for at least 3 years? I mean; isn't this very analogous to the
> situation of binary ("crippled" form) vs. source, that GPL already adresses?

Hm, there is a point there. I may have to reconsider my position in
the reply I just sent to Evan.

On the other hand, I don't think your proposed reformulation will make
somebody who wants an anti-DMCA clause happy; in general those seem to
want to reproduce exactly the same phrasing as the DMCA and the Infosoc
directive use.

Henning Makholm          "Hører I. Kald dem sammen. Så mange som overhovedet
                    muligt. Jeg siger jer det her er ikke bare stort. Det er
             Stortstortstort. Det er allerhelvedes stort. Det er historiEN."

Reply to: