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

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

On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:26:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote:
> > This not a theory. This is practical experience. This is why pine is
> > not free.
> The awkward phrase in the pine license is:
> "Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
> documentation for any purpose and without fee to the University of
> Washington is hereby granted"
> The same phrase appears in several other licenses that we consider free.
> Your argument appears to be that we should consider those licenses
> non-free because the words can be interpreted in a non-free manner.

Whenever such licenses appear, we either get them fixed or explicitly
clarified by the author. That is what we are trying to do here,
despite the best efforts of some people to obstruct the process.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: