Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
"Benj. Mako Hill" <email@example.com> wrote:
> So, if we treat this as a freedom issue in situations where the
> licensor has created a new version that does not include the
> comment/bounding box and/or where we have reason to believe the
> licensor feels that this is in fact part of the license, but do not
> treat this as a freeodm issue when documents are licensed in the
> normal way with a hyperlink to this page, would it be alright with
> you? I apologize if I misunderstood.
It's clearly not "a freedom issue" when the licensor includes the
licence on their pages without the trademark terms. I'm not sure
about the situation when they just link to the ambiguous page
which has had clarifications issued in obscure places by CC (along
with statements relying on the US view of "fair use" IIRC). I
reject your attempt to make me decide without extra data.
In another view: I'd not complain to the licensor nor object
to stuff going in debian if that was the only problem, but it's
not and I'm not going to endorse WCAG-busting practice.
> Of course, in any situation, we should lobby to have this changed. I'm
> just trying to divide the must-have freedom issues from the "it can
> and should be changed" issues.
So what's the practical difference? For example, would you give
this matter time at a scheduled meeting with CC people?
If you're really wondering about the priorities for fixing,
I'd say: author name purge, anti-DRM, comparable credit,
trademark licence presentation. However, I suspect the fixes in
easiest-first order are: presentation, purge, credit, anti-DRM.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct