Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG
On 3/5/07, Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
As far as CC-v3.0 are concerned, my personal opinion should be clear
from the message[2] that you yourself cite: I don't think that any
CC-v3.0 license meets the DFSG. Other people disagree with me, though.
You didn't find any "final answer" because the thread didn't reach a
clear consensus (and possibily is not even over, just in pause for a
while...).
The "final answer" on this sort of issue isn't arrived at through
discussion on -legal at all. To quote an ftp-master:
"the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a license
is suitable for distribution [...] isn't based on who shouts the
loudest on a mailing list, it's on the views of the archive maintainers." [1]
In his role as DPL, that same ftp-master (or "archive maintainer", if
you prefer) has endorsed [2] the Debian Creative Commons Workgroup
which opined [3] that the CCPL 3.0 is suitable for Debian main. The
Workgroup's conclusion appears to hinge on whether one chooses to
interpret the GFDL GR [4] as a precedent rather than an exemption, but
I suspect that in the absence of another GR, it's the ftp-masters
that'll be getting to choose.
Similarly, while MJ Ray argues [5] that packages under the Open Font
License making their way into main is proof of incompetence and/or
oversight on the ftp-masters' part, is it not possible that they
simply disagree with debian-legal's analysis and decided to let the
packages in on that basis, just as they did in the case of Sun's Java
licensing?
As ever, the above is only my personal opinion and I'm perfectly happy
to be proven wrong when presented with appropriate evidence. Feel free
to smash my thought experiment to bits as best as you are able. :-)
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00129.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/08/msg00015.html
[3] http://evan.prodromou.name/Debian_Creative_Commons_Workgroup_report
[4] http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001
[5] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00001.html
Cheers,
--
Andrew Saunders
Reply to: