Re: Anti-TPM clauses
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 11:50:32PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:16:39 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
> > Freek Dijkstra <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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*.
ITYM "Francesco Poli won't stop crapflooding debian-legal with his
dissenting view about the freeness of CC by-SA 3.0, making it ever harder to
find relevant posts like
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/08/msg00120.html> that show
there's no compelling reason to interpret CC by-SA 3.0 as non-free,
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.