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

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

On Sat, 2005-04-02 at 11:52 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 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.

I think that there is a spectrum of interpretation here.

At one extreme is assuming that even obviously non-free wording ("You
may not make modifications or distribute copies") could somehow be
considered free ("They wouldn't mind if /we/ did it, I'm sure").

At the other end is the assumption that even obviously free wording is

I think we need to stay focused somewhere in the middle. A good metric
is to be suspicious of any language that appears non-free, absent other
information. In other words, err on the conservative side.

I think that leaning the other way is unfair to Debian users. Especially
where licenses have not been crafted to be DFSG-free, we can't make the
assumption that unclear language is free.

Down to brass tacks: if you think that there are parts of the Creative
Commons summary where we are leaning over backwards to see a problem
where none exists, please let me know. We _do_ need to bring it into a
final form sooner rather than later.


Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: