On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 13:56:47 +0100 Julien Cristau wrote: > On Fri, Mar 9, 2007 at 13:41:35 +0100, Ismael Valladolid Torres > wrote: > > > Julien Cristau escribe: > > > CC-* before 3.0 are non-free > > > > Why exactly!? > > See http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary (this is about 2.0, but I > think the same problems apply to 2.5). Wait, wait! This thread has gone forward *way too fast*! ;-) Just to recap. As I previously stated (in this same thread), my personal opinion on CC-v3.0 licenses is that they fail to meet the DFSG. Other people disagree with me, though. As far as previous versions of CC licenses are concerned, there's consensus that they *all* fail to meet the DFSG: see * the summary of the CC-by-v1.0 by Jeremy Hankins[1] * the already cited summary of Creative Commons v2.0 Licenses by Evan Prodromou[2] [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00031.html [2] http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html CC-v2.5 licenses share some of the issues that are present in CC-v2.0 ones, and hence fail to meet the DFSG. As a consequence CC-by is not OK in my opinion. Now, after clarifying my take on this matter, let's get back to Mathieu's initial question. Unfortunately, finding DFSG-free songs is really difficult at present. My suggestion is trying hard and finding songs under well known DFSG-free licenses (GNU GPL v2, Expat/MIT, BSD, X11) or dedicated to the public domain. Another *great* thing to do could be persuading some copyright holder(s) to relicense (or even dual-license) their songs 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:
pgpVIE_iXOQwJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature