On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:01:34 -0500 Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: [...] > In the realm of the mix of research and Debian activities we > (NeuroDebian project) whenever applicable try to encourage researchers > to share their data under some open terms. This is really appreciated from my part: thanks for doing that. > To avoid confusion, and to > suggest a license which seems to be a better fit for data, we > advise (and use ourselves) CC BY-SA 3.0, Despite my appreciation for the general principle of encouraging the adoption of "open" terms, I personally disagree with your specific choice of license to suggest. Since many debian-legal regulars are already well aware of my own opinion on Creative Commons licenses, I won't repeat my arguments for the n-th time (!). Just a couple of links to explain what I mean: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/01/msg00084.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00105.html > in particular because it was > announced to be DFSG-compliant. I am a bit surprised by this sentence: I do know that FTP Masters currently accept works licensed under the terms of CC-by-v3.0 and CC-by-sa-v3.0 as DFSG-free, but I am not aware of any clear announcement of this decision (a decision I disagree with, as I said above). Are you aware of any such announcement, hopefully including a rationale for their decision? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpE7JWmdR0Ut.pgp
Description: PGP signature