On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:43:19 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 07:19:35PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:39:49 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > > > [...] > > > excellent explanation! > > > In other words, IIUC, this clause seems to try and limit the harms > > done by some idiotic laws. > > The license would *not* be *less* restrictive without this clause. > > > Is that correct? > > Yes, that's correct. Without this clause, laws would still exist that > would empower certain groups to collect royalties on behalf of > copyright holders for certain uses of works. Good. As a consequence, I hereby state that I don't consider the Non-waivable Compulsory License Schemes clause as an issue anymore. That is to say: I am *no* longer worried by clause 3e(i) of CC-by-sa-v3.0/unported and CC-by-v3.0/unported licenses. I am still worried by absurd laws, but that's a completely different beast (we should not blame licenses for that). I am still concerned by the other CC-v3.0 issues listed in my analyses: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00124.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00105.html Is anyone willing to kill another concern of mine (by following the constructive discussion approach, please)? Final disclaimers, as usual: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html 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:
pgpXRfli9GGcU.pgp
Description: PGP signature