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

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

On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 12:21 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:

> I think it is in the spirit of the Creative Commons licenses not to 
> require a transparent copy for editing. 

That's true. However, for a work to be DFSG-free, source code must be

> Therefore, I think it would be wrong to "fix" the Creative Commons 
> licenses by smuggling in a requirement for transparent copy in a 
> license update.

I think in general I'd prefer we go with the minimal changes necessary
to make the licenses DFSG-free.


Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: