[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:16:39 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:

> Freek Dijkstra <debian2007@macfreek.nl> writes:
> > it's probably non-free, and best not put it in main. Correct?
> That's my understanding, yes. Largely on the basis that it's imposing
> a non-free restriction ("You may not ...") on the recipient.

I agree with you that CC-v3.0 licensed works should *not* enter main.

However, the FTP masters seem to disagree: there already are some
CC-v3.0 licensed works in main, *unfortunately*.
For instance:

  (see bug #431794, where I unsuccessfully tried to get this issue
   solved: I even asked FTP masters to explain their decision, but
   got no answer so far...)

There are also CC-v2.5 licensed works in main:


And CC-v2.0 licensed works in main:

  (this one is really sad, since it also includes OPL licensed works
   taken from the Debian Project website, which is non-free: see
   bugs #238245 and #388141)

There are even CC-v1.0 licensed works in main:


I really do not know what can be done with these bugs (since, these
are indeed Debian bugs, IMO).
Reporting bugs for CC-v3.0 seems to produce answers of the "this is not
a bug" type; and when you ask the FTP masters "could you elaborate?",
the only effect is a deafening silence.
Maybe CC-v2.5/v2.0/v1.0 cases should be reported to the BTS, but the
only effect could be relicensing to CC-v3.0, which is no solution from
my standpoint.
As an aside, CC-v2.0 and CC-v2.5 already allow relicensing derivative
works under later versions of licenses with the same license elements,
but this has not been actually done in Debian for the above cases...


 Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpNdY1QNr3oG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: