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

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

On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 12:16:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> 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.

I doubt the accuracy of that, but regardless, if there are, it's just
because we haven't got around to them yet.

> 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.

By your logic, current practice is not to fix RC bugs, because there
exist RC bugs which have not been fixed.

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: