Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
Andrew Suffield <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:26:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> 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.
No we don't. There's huge chunks of X under licenses like that without
us having obtained any clarification. We assume that they're free unless
the copyright holder claims otherwise. You might like that to be
changed, but what you're claiming is simply untrue - current practice is
not to read licenses in the worst possible light.
Matthew Garrett | firstname.lastname@example.org