On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:43:39 +0000 (UTC) Sam Morris wrote: > On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:45:36 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > 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). > > Would you mind elaborating? Sure: the already cited http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/09/msg00126.html has a (possibly incomplete) list of packages including CC-v2.x/CC-v1.0-licensed works. I've just rechecked them, to see if things have changed since September 2007: it seems that nothing changed, except for scorched3d (where a work apparently switched from CC-v2.0 to CC-v3.0)... > If they are not DFSG-free then they should be > removed from main. That's exactly what I think (I also think the same about CC-v3.0-licensed works, but this will be much harder to fix, since the rest of the Universe seems to disagree with me on this point...). In the above-cited message I stated I didn't know what could be done and asked for suggestions. The only suggestion I received was a "nice" answer from Steve Langasek who told me to "stop crapflooding debian-legal": http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/09/msg00128.html Only MJ Ray replied to Steve's ad-hominem attack: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/09/msg00153.html So, now I am once again aground and don't know what can be 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:
pgp122BukP_E9.pgp
Description: PGP signature