Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
> From: Evan Prodromou <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> If they were going to play the heavy with us, why would they bother
> making all the other changes we asked for? What would be the point?
To give enough concessions to make a favourable GR more probable.
> It's pretty clear that the Debian Project is not militantly united
> against anti-TPM clauses. [...]
Which is relevant how, except for snap GR votes? There is clearly a
valid concern when licences start to dictate which media can be used
for particular software.
> > Can we try to make CC put this issue out to a general
> > resolution?
> You can, if you want. I don't think that's Debian's place, though.
How does one start a CC GR?
> > > 1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of
> > > our principles?
> > Neither. It was a single-point compromise interpretation. So, the other
> > two questions asked are irrelevant.
> It's not clear to me what that means. Does that mean that the anti-TPM
> clause in the FDL is compatible with the DFSG, or not?
Yes, due to GR 2006-01.
> > Thank you! I am not allowed to post to cc-licenses at this time.
> Why not?
Because of cc-licenses-owner's or ibiblio's posting rules, as far
as I can tell.
> > I have discussed other aspects, including some downsides of TPM-bans, at
> > http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/fc-uk-discuss/2006-August/001173.html
> > which is a more public list than cc-, as far as I know.
> So, you're complaining to a third party? What good does that do? Maybe
> it'd be better to make this more direct.
It is a more public list than cc-licenses and its subscribers are
relatively active, including some who attended the infamous iSummit.
It would be better to be more direct, but I think CC so far has been a
good example of how not to consult.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct