"Francesco Poli" <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote in message [🔎] 20060427230958.053df4db.frx@firenze.linux.it">news:[🔎] 20060427230958.053df4db.frx@firenze.linux.it...
A simple clarification from the copyright holders that they will not be enforcing any of the problematic clauses, along with the promise to upgrade to the newer versions of CC when possible should qualify them as free. (We let Mozilla get away with this durring the tre-licencing). So simply get the clarification.I don't see any similarities with the Mozilla case: Mozilla has been going through a slow and difficult relicensing process from a non-free status to a DFSG-free one. Debian waited until the process ended.
I'm pretty sure Debian did not wait until the process ended. If it had, Firefox would have only entered Debian around a month ago. The similaries may be somewhat limited, but the underlying idea is the same:some or all of the work is under a licence that is not free, but upstream has assured us that they are trying to change the licence of the work to one that is free, and has assured us that they do not intend to hold the non-free terms against us before the process has been complete.
The only real difference is that is this case, we cannot be 100% sure that the new licences will be DFSG-free. However, correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that CC has acknowleged the various problems this list has found, and intends to correct them.
So it is more similar than it may appear.