Re: Can CC BY 2.0 be upgraded to 3.0 ?
- To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Can CC BY 2.0 be upgraded to 3.0 ?
- From: Charles Plessy <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 09:53:33 +0900
- Message-id: <20130914005333.GA8889@falafel.plessy.net>
- In-reply-to: <20130913201822.GA23349@helios.localdomain>
- References: <5102784B.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20130125140700.GA15376@falafel.plessy.net> <email@example.com> <20130126133513.GB4263@falafel.plessy.net> <20130126140148.GA3604@jwilk.net> <20130127010406.GA27687@falafel.plessy.net> <510685AE.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20130223133904.GC3875@falafel.plessy.net> <20130225134638.GA3438@falafel.plessy.net> <20130913201822.GA23349@helios.localdomain>
Le Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:18:22PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte a écrit :
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:46:38PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > I found #675435 where it was written that CC-BY-SA-2.0 was not suitable
> > for Debian, and now I am confused.
> > Could you let us know your position on the possiblity to accept CC-BY-SA-2.0 by
> > upgrading it to 3.0 through its clause 4b ?
> I missed this thread until I stumbled on a bug.
> 4b applies to derivative works only.
thanks a lot for the follow-up. It is essential to have authoritative answers
on such questions.
Have a nice week-end,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan