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

Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments

Evan Prodromou wrote:

> On Sun, 2006-24-09 at 12:06 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Worse, the PDF description of the parallel distribution amendment appears
>> to describe an amendment which is less restrictive than necessary for
>> Debian's purposes (see comment 11).  (Proper parallel distribution
>> requires the unencumbered to be distributed to every recipient of the
>> encumbered: though not technically "with" the encumbered, it's
>> effectively the same,
>> and that's not mentioned in the response.)  Given this
>> (mis)interpretation,
>> I would probably oppose such an amendment too.  :-/
> If there is a mistake there, it is probably my fault. I'm confused as to
> why the unencumbered version must be _distributed_ to each recipient,
> rather than just _made available_ to each recipient. (I differentiate
> here between packaging the two versions inseparably together, versus
> putting the unencumbered version on a public Web site, say.)

Erp, that's correct.  You just stated it even better.  The way the PDF
description from CC stated it it seems to imply that the copies must be
physically bundled.

> I believe it's immaterial to the DFSG-compatibility of the license, but
> I wonder why you think it's required for "proper" parallel distribution
> otherwise.

Clarification above.

>> > Hence, it seems that CC refuses to disclose the intended meaning of the
>> > clause...
>> I think the plaintext meaning should be assumed unless the licensor
>> specifies otherwise (reference UW-Pine case), and we know that the
>> plaintext meaning allows "parallel distribution".  (Of course, if there
>> is a court case, we'd have to defer to that, but until there is, I'd
>> go by the plain meaning.)
> My guess is that Mia's response is a political one. Their international
> affiliates have opposed additional parallel distribution language; we've
> said that the language in the 3.0 draft may be enough to allow parallel
> distribution anyways. Rather than getting them upset, she's given us a
> barely-qualified yes. I think we should take our victory as gracefully
> and discreetly as we can.


> ~Evan

Nathanael Nerode  <neroden@fastmail.fm>

Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...

Reply to: