Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:37:08 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 09:53:57PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > AFAICT, CC seems to interpret the clause this way, since the
> > > explicit parallel distribution proviso was *removed* because of
> > > strong opposition from many people at a CC summit...
> >
> > AFAICT, you're speculating based on the same limited information that
> > I have at my disposal.
>
> Yes, I admit I am.
>
> > There are many reasons someone might object to
> > such a clause that *don't* contradict our goals, and I want to hear
> > CC's own answer to this question.
>
> I would be interested too.
> Has anyone from the Debian Creative Commons Workgroup already asked for
> a clarification?
In http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003950.html
I asked: "please can someone tell us where to find the record of the
rejections by international affiliates and how the CC decision-making
works? I've had a bit of a search of creativecommons.org but haven't
found details. I thank the cc-nl lead for explaining his motives here,
but I'm only guessing about the others."
The lack of reply to that bit has been deafening so far. If someone
who can post there feels like highlighting the request, please do.
Reports of other decisions at the iSummit (things like 'hum votes'
and strong bias from the presiding members) fill me with FUD.
Thanks,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: