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

Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions

On Mon, 2006-14-08 at 01:43 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:

> As usual, please feel free to forward any of my words to CC.  I'm very busy
> and probably won't manage to do so myself.

Saying it yourself is a huge benefit.

> Reviewing the license, everything we were originally worried about appears
> to have been fixed (with the possible exception of the DRM business), and
> no new problems seem to have been introduced.  It all looks DFSG-free to
> me, with the exception of "keep intact", noted below.


> The "keep intact" phraseology is still present, and still mildly
> troublesome:
>   "You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and
>    to the disclaimer of warranties."

Don Armstrong noticed this too, and we made a note of it, but it was
pretty mild. The wording is almost directly lifted from the GPLv2,
section 1:

        You may copy and distribute verbatim copies [...], provided that
        you [...] keep intact all the notices that refer to this License
        and to the absence of any warranty; [...]

It's hard to say that some particular wording is incompatible with the
DFSG if it's in other accepted licenses.

> I hate to bring this up at the "last minute", but it would be a definite
> improvement to replace "notices" with "legal notices" in this clause, or to
> do something similar to clarify it.

Feel free to bring it up.

> > The changes from the 2.x version are largely due to an effort to make
> > the licenses compatible with the DFSG. 
> Congrats folks!

Congrats yourself! Your analysis and suggestions on the 2.0 licenses
were extremely important in getting us to this point, and they're
greatly appreciated.

> Commented in another post....  if it really prohibited parallel
> distribution, I would think it's non-free -- but I think it does *not*
> prohibit parallel distribution.  So I think it *is* free.

Yeah, I'd like to believe that. Now, here's the funny part: if the board
and the international affiliates of CC vigorously opposed the idea of
parallel distribution and had a clause explicitly permitting it removed
from the license, can we reasonably assume that the license as it stands
still allows parallel distribution?


Reply to: