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 non-free. 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 -- Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part