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

Re: CC-SA 3.0 on wiki page.



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: pgpyF_T9SF6xZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: