Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >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
> There are better ways to spend you time, these tests are not based on
> the DFSG and so are not much relevant.
I think that's overstating it. Those tests look DFSG-based, but
there doesn't seem to be good current documentation on how they
relate to them.
> >I don't know if cc.org will be happy to change their licenses to make
> >them (or at least some) dfsg free.
> You should also note that it's not at all obvious that the CC-BY and
> CC-BY-SA licenses are not DFSG-free, notwithstanding the objections from
> a few vocal debian-legal posters.
"DFSG-free" is not the default choice. There seems to be
problems and I'm not yet convinced the licences follow DFSG.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct