On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:35:47 -0800 Jeff Carr wrote: > On 01/11/07 06:42, Terry Hancock wrote: [...] > > I agree with you that NC and ND content violates DFSG. > > Sorry, I had difficulty making my position clear. > > Even though the existence of an optional clause (like NC) appears to > contradict the DFSG in situations we can imagine, that does not rule > out it's use will always contradict the DFSG for every case. I think it will: it forbids selling the work (fails DFSG#1) and discriminates against a field of endeavor (fails DFSG#6). > > It's a good idea to ask and raise this concern with CC (as has been > throughly done). If they keep the clause in future licenses I'll be > interested to see who ends up using it and why. I am no telepath: I cannot see why people go on adopting CC-*nc* licenses. I just see that many do so. And CC is doing nothing to discourage this, AFAIK. [...] > I hope the above is a bit clearer? Only a bit, not much, unfortunately... :( -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/releas-o-meter.html Try our amazing Releas-o-meter! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpIWRne4W2KP.pgp
Description: PGP signature