On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:55:33PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:15:58 -0400 Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:00:38PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > I respectfully disagree: I am convinced that the GNU GPL is far better > > > than any CC license, for both programmatic and non-programmatic works. > > > But that's not the point, anyway. > > > What I was trying to say was just that having those files under > > > GPL-compatible terms would erase any possible doubt (and also enable > > > other potential uses that are currently forbidden). > > Please don't spread FUD against the CC license set when it'll be > > perfectly fine. (quite literally F.U.D. in this case). The CC licenses > > are perfectly fine, no matter how much you disagree. > CC licenses may be "perfectly fine" in *your* opinion. > Apparently in many other people's opinion, too. > But they are not in *my* opinion. > I think I have a right to have my own opinion and to express it > publicly, as long as I clearly describe it as my *own personal* opinion. You have a right to your own opinion. You do *not* have a right to express it *on this list*. The purpose of this list is to provide guidance to maintainers and upstreams regarding *Debian's* definition of free software, as well as guidance regarding the *legality* of particular combinations of works. You using the list as a soapbox for your opinions about licenses that you think Debian *shouldn't* accept is an abuse of the list. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature