Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
- From: MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: 03 Apr 2005 00:43:35 GMT
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20050326222757.GC2656@nozomi> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <424B42B5.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <424EB33C.email@example.com>
I cover the FAQ question in reply to Marco d'Itri. Other questions:
Thomas <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote: [...]
> > Well, as a matter of fact, authors always have absolute freedom to
> > choose the license they like for their own works. [...example...]
> Am I (the author) free in deciding the license? [...]
Yes. Are we (a packager and distributor) free in not working with
it if we decide it does not follow our published guidelines?
> > Keep in mind that, in these arguments, when I say "software" I'm not
> > speaking of programs only: software is programs, documentation, images,
> > sounds, animations, literature, ...
> Ok, but as others think different (see my opinion on this point above),
> do you mind would it be possible to respect the pluralism in the concept
> of freedom and of what exactly software is? [...]
I am confused by this. I am not telling you what you must mean
by "software". I will tell you what I think debian means by
"software". I will try to persuade other constituents of debian
that my view should be accepted.
If by "respect the pluralism" you mean generally accept non-free
software into debian on the grounds that it isn't software to
which the DFSG applies, then I probably never will condone
that. It's just too extreme for me: mutable files holding
bitstreams yet somehow the files aren't software? Very rare.
Do you claim that Creative Commons draws some distinction
between software and programs? I think that would be another
case of CC failing to say what they believe, weakening that
project, cutting up the commons between different beliefs.
Really, they should be called the Creative Commonses project.
> Shouldn't we recognize a kind of pluralism in the concept of what
> exactly are programs and software and how should they be treated, as far
> as these different view reflect in licenses that are compatible with
> secondary modifications?
No. I believe the same freedoms which I have been persuaded
to give over my programs are valuable for all software. We
should treat all software equally. I also consider that to be
the view of debian, expressed through the social contract and
DFSG. To change those would require a strong General Resolution:
I have a vote and today would argue for the current situation,
based on solid pragmatic reasons.
Compromise opportunity: I would want a pretty unambiguous
description of when to use anything weaker than the DFSG. At
least, it should avoid letting any programs which don't
follow DFSG into main. No-one has posted a good definition
of documentation which doesn't include some programs, for
example. I think that inability is because it's not possible,
but I might be proved wrong.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct