Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
I've been recently contacted by two people belonging to Creative Commons
Italy staff, regarding your draft summary.
Hi, I am one of those guys, thomas of curse
We began a three-party discussion (in italian): I was hoping to talk
about debian-legal's proposed license fixes, but, so far, our
conversation has been drifting more and more towards life, universe and
everything...
that's the reason why I stop posting.
First thing I did was proposing to them to involve debian-legal itself
in the discussion, since the summary was born here, and thus any comment
is best addressed here. Unfortunately, it seems that this proposal was
not accepted, since we went on talking (in italian) without Cc:ing
debian-legal...
I'm following this thread -and some other- but is not so easy to
understand it completely - right now I am studying the desert island
test...;-)
Do you feel I'd better stop talking to them, until they are willing to
speak with you and Benjamin (and other debian representatives)?
I'm here just as me with only my personal opinion.
In any case, remember that the goal of a icommons(Italy in this case) is
to port the international license to the local jurisdiction. In some
cases it could be a bit frustrating -as always when you have to
*translate*-. The best place to propose substantial changes is the
international license mailing list (evan, are u the same evan, right?)
[...]
I don't know if cc.org will be happy to change their licenses to make
them (or at least some) dfsg free.
However, I find interesting your critics, especially those about cc
trademark licensing and DRM clause.
Personally I see some advantages in creating compatibility between dfsg
and some cc-license (BY and BY-SA).
The point -at least for me- is to figure out if others agree.
Some of the main opinion against this point are that dfsg are directed
to software and cc are not. So, if a software license must be free, a
multimedia (I use this term to understand us, it could be not the
correct one) license has to be open content.
The difference lies in the rights granted in relation to the nature and
to the function of the information protected.
I think that one of the most important aspects of
free/dfsg/opencontent/... is to create freedom. Freedom for authors and
for users. And a very important freedom is that they (both) can decide
which license to use. If they are not free in doing that, because if
they release their images with BY-SA, these images can't stay in debian
main distribution, than something is wrong.
This is the reason because I hope that this project will go further.
But, as I said, it's just my personal view.
Hope to be useful to the discussion
thomas
Reply to: