Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
Andrew Suffield <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 12:16:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> 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.
- that ought to keep you going for a while.
>> 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.
If the majority of developers were not fixing RC bugs, then common
practice would be that we didn't fix RC bugs. But they do. Most people
believe that a license with some ambiguity is acceptable if there's no
indication that the copyright holder interprets it oddly.
You're just wrong here. The fact that a license /can/ be interpreted in
a way that would result in it being non-free does not mean that all
material under that license should be considered non-free.
Matthew Garrett | firstname.lastname@example.org