Re: Can we change our position on CC BY 2.0 and 2.5 ?
Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:
> Le Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 01:19:23PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt a écrit :
>> On 01/25/2013 10:41, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> > Le Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:16:24AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
>> >> On 13102 March 1977, Christoph Egger wrote:
>> >>>> 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 ?
>> >>
>> >> We don't want 2.5 in main, we want 3.0. So why?
>> >
>> > Sorry, I was mislead by the presence of 2.5 in awstats and grub2-splashimages...
>>
>> I filed bugs[1][2] for these two packages. The icons in awstats are
>> even already licensed as CC-BY-SA-3.0[3].
>
> There are also moin, netcdf-java, vlc, or wxmaxima, which either have an
> inaccurate copyright file or contain files licensed under CC-BY-(SA-)2.5
> (and pinta with by-nc-nd-2.5).
>
> Note that I have not tried to be exhaustive in my search.
>
> I have to apologise for netcdf-java as I think I have wrote on Debian Med's
> mailing list that the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses 2.5 are suitable for Debian.
Not a good argument, there's also 2.0 in the archive
http://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=Attribution-ShareAlike+2.0
Surely some of that is false positives but several look like true hits
(like byzanz)
Christoph
Reply to: