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 text...). 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. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html 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