On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:23:16 -0300 Franklin PIAT wrote: > Hello, Hi! > > The wikipedia page "Creative_Commons_licenses"[1] states : [...] > However, BrunoKleinert has added CC-SA 3.0 to the DFSG wiki page. > > I assume that one one the page is outdated or wrong (probably the > wikipedia page). The full wikipedia section about Debian criticism about Creative Commons tells more than what you quoted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_licenses#Debian In summary, it states that the Debian Project thinks that CC-by fails to meet the DFSG [which is true, at least up to v2.5 licenses], that other CC licenses are more restrictive [which is also true] and thus a fortiori considered non-free. It also states that there have been some efforts to fix the freeness issues in v3.0 licenses [also true] and that we don't know yet if v3.0 licenses will be deemed acceptable. The last part is the possibly outdated one. CC-v3.0 licenses have been released and analysed on debian-legal. My own personal conclusion is that some issues are still present and thus CC-v3.0 licenses still fail to meet the DFSG and should be considered as unacceptable for Debian (main). However other people (including, apparently, ftp-masters) disagree with me and seem to consider CC-by-v3.0 and CC-by-sa-v3.0 licenses as acceptable for Debian (main). Taking into account that ftp-masters are the real decision makers regarding what can or cannot enter the Debian archive, I think that this means the Debian Project (unfortunately) accepts the above two licenses as DFSG-compliant. There are already some CC-v3.0 licensed works in main. On the other hand, there are also CC-v2.x and even CC-v1.0 licensed works in main (possibly allowed in by mistake or overlook). Finally, please note that, when I asked ftp-masters to explain the rationale behind their conclusions, I got no answer at all, which is really disappointing. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/09/msg00126.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/09/msg00076.html for further details and pointers to more in-depth analyses. I hope this clarifies the (non trivial) status of CC-v3.0 licenses. My usual (and possibly superfluous) disclaimers are: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. [...] > P.S. Please CC me, I'm not on the list. Done. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgplTUXis0BJn.pgp
Description: PGP signature