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

Re: Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:14:27 -0500 Joe Smith wrote:

> Well that is just the non-legalese synopsis of the CC-by-2.5.

It seems so.

> It was not intended to be used as an actual licence text.

Definitely *not* intended.

> It certainly can be used as a licence text. (Just about anything can
> be).
> It is also reasonable likely to hold up it court.

Mmmmh, I don't know: it's not designed and written to hold in court...
It's just a little (and inaccurate) summary of what you can and cannot
do with a CC-by-2.5 licensed work...

> It does lack some of the legal protections the legal text has,
> such as the warrenty disclaimer, but I suspect that a court would
> treat it  as
> equivlent to the Expat licence, except perhaps in the case of a
> warrenty dispute.

I don't think it's really equivalent to the Expat license.
The intent of the licensor could be considered satisfiable by the Expat
license, maybe.

> However, It is not clear if copyright holder intended to licence the
> works  using the
> text of the dead as the licence, rather than using the actual licence 
> itself. 

The copyright holder seems to be confused about which is the actual
license text (and possibly thought that the summary was the full license
A clarification should be seeked from upstream: if he/she really
intended to adopt a license text as simple as that one, he/she could be
persuaded to adopt the Expat license instead.  On the other hand, if
upstream really meant to license under CC-by-2.5, then the work is
non-free and the work cannot enter Debian, unless relicensed in a
DFSG-free manner.

 Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgp0Eb799HtWA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: