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.
Yes.
> 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?
~Evan
Reply to: