On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:41:12 +0100 Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote: > Francesco Poli escribe: > > 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. > > Maybe a big part of the problem is that licenses which are ok for > documentation or software works are not ok for artistic works and vice > versa. The problem is that the licenses that are palatable to many artists fail to meet the DFSG. But, there's nothing new with that: the licenses that are palatable to many programmers and software house CEOs also fail to meet the DFSG (who said Microsoft EULA?). > > I'd find surprising that only artistic works released in the public > domain were DFSG compliant enough to be released with Debian. That's not the case: as has already been stated, works released under the terms of good licenses do comply with the DFSG (for instance: GNU GPL v2, Expat/MIT, X11/MIT, 2-clause BSD, 3-clause BSD, ...). P.S.: Please do not reply to me, Cc:ing the list, as I didn't asked you to do so. I am a debian-legal subscriber and would rather avoid receiving the same message twice. Reply to the list only (as long as you want to send a public response). See http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- 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:
pgpc_nGy8PkNh.pgp
Description: PGP signature