On Tue, 2007-06-03 at 10:06 +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > 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. [...] > > I think [3]'s the opinion of the Workgroup leader. My opinion is based on the contribution of debian-legal participants, of the workgroup participants, and of my own review of the licenses. I believe that the Workgroup, including yourself, considered the license draft that included the explicit parallel distribution proviso to be compatible with the DFSG. That includes the amended revocation and attribution clauses that Francesco is concerned with; we thought they were sufficiently softened that they were not an effective prevention of licensors exercising their freedom. I think the loss of that explicit parallel distribution proviso was regrettable, but I also believe that a large number of debian-legal participants have said that the DRM clause, as it stands, is free enough to allow distribution under DRM if such DRM is not "effective" -- that is, if steps are taken to preserve downstream users' freedom. Most considered it to be open to parallel distribution, even without an explicit proviso. ~Evan -- Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org> The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part