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

[Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote:

> The existence of one idiot implies the existence of N broken copies,
> where all of them copied the file written by the idiot. License errors
> propagate like flies. It eliminates the possibility of us being able
> to say "anything under this license is free".

We don't have that freedom in most cases anyway. It's always possible
for a vendor to interpret a free software license in a way that's
non-free - even if we disagree with that interpretation, we will then
simply stop shipping the software. Does this leave us open to lawsuits?
Probably. Is there any other approach we can take and still be able to
function as an operating system distributor? No.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org