Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
MJ Ray wrote:
> How can anyone discuss decisions made by a secret process for secret
> reasons in any useful way? If that decision is to be changed, it helps
> to know how and why it was made, but we simply have almost no data on it.
This is the part which is really frustrating about CC, actually. Frankly,
if we had some more data on it, we might well conclude "Oh, they rejected a
separate clause just because they wanted to keep the license simple, they
have no problem with the parallel distribution concept." And then we
wouldn't be discussing this.
I think we have to go with the text as written at this point: any
distribution method which doesn't restrict the rights granted in the
license is OK. If individual licensors assert a different interpretation,
we'll deal with that then.
> I remember being criticised for taking these comments to wider communities
> in the past, but this is why I do that: CC's discussion forums seem
> damped, narrow and impotent, which I think will only change when enough
> prominent CC supporters like Evan start to question that problem.
Whereas I do it because I'm sick of being told I can't post unless I
subscribe to the mailing list. :-P
OK. Let's declare victory and move on. Proposed statement:
We believe that the draft CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses appear to be Free
Licenses, so that most works licensed under them will probably satisfy the
DFSG. Please note that Debian evaluates the freeness of each work
independently. Issues beyond copyright licensing sometimes come into play.
And particular licensors may specify different interpretations of the
license text. So this statement does not mean that Debian will
automatically consider every work licensed under these licenses to be free.
Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...