Re: Can we change our position on CC BY 2.0 ?
Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:
> Le Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 08:41:47AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
>>
>> When I encounter a work under CC BY 2.0, I have a hard time explaining Upstream
>> why it is strictly necessary to upgrade it to 2.5 or more for their work to be
>> distributed in Debian. What are the crucial changes that made CC BY 2.5 Free
>> while CC BY 2.0 is non-Free ?
>
> Alternatively, if we can not find a significant difference of freedom between
> CC BY 2.5, and CC BY 2.0, how about accepting CC BY 2.0 in Debian ?
(4)
c. If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You
- must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original
- Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by
- conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if
- supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably
- practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor
- specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to
- the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and in the case
- of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the
- Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author,"
- or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). Such credit may
- be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the
- case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will
- appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner
- at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit.
+ must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable
+ to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original
+ Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the
+ Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a
+ sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution in
+ Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means,
+ the name of such party or parties; the title of the Work if supplied; to
+ the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any,
+ that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI
+ does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the
+ Work; and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of
+ the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by
+ Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original
+ Author"). Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner;
+ provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective
+ Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable
+ authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such
+ other comparable authorship credit.
=> in 2.5 you only need to credit authors iff they supplied a
name/pseudonym removing the need for authors of derived works to
provide either
Just reading the diff
Christoph
Reply to: