On the debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0
This is a comment on version 4 of
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
About debian-legal:
I feel that this would benefit from making it clear who can make
binding decisions on licensing. I suggest:
The decision-makers are the ftpmasters (who are responsible
for archive maintenance) and the package maintainers (who are
responsible for uploading to debian). Both of these are thought
to listen to advice from debian-legal and debian policy is for
maintainers to send copyright queries to debian-legal. It is
possible to reverse decisions and issue position statements
through a vote of all developers or the technical committee
(see the constitution), but both of those actions are rare.
About Creative Commons:
I feel this needs a paragraph on CC's decision-making, but
I do not feel qualified to write it.
License summaries:
Removing References - I think this also may conflict with
No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavour if exercised.
Any Other Comparable Authorship Credit - I consider this
unclear rather than outright breaking guidelines, so I
suggest making the last paragraph "would be" not "is".
Anti-DRM clause - I think this is fine.
Trademark Restrictions - In the final paragraph, this
should appeal to Web Content Accessibility Guideline
2 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#gl-color to support it.
Maybe this section should also note that there have been
uses of the licence which included this section, so it
is definitely ambiguous.
I agree with the other licence type summaries.
Recommendations for Authors:
Recommendations for Creative Commons:
I am happy with these recommendations, but realise that
they are subject to negotiation.
References:
These seem to be truncated. I would also find non-opensource.org
editions of the BSD and MIT licences.
Add WCAG, the debian policy manual and constitution.
I apologise for the late arrival of this comment.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: