Re: Лицензия CC-BY
On 2016-02-12, D.Himro wrote:
> Добрый день уважаемые. Может кто хорошо ориентируется в всевозможных
> лицензиях. Совместим ли сабж с политикой Debian?
Я недавно спрашивал:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2015/11/msg00000.html
> https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses have no conclusion about CC-BY 3.0/4.0
> licenses.
> My system (up to date testing) already have CC-BY packages:
> $ cat /usr/share/doc/*/copyright | command grep -i ^license:.*CC | sort | uniq -c
> ...
> 10 License: CC-BY
> 33 License: CC-BY-3.0
> 1 License: CC-BY-3.0-US
> ...
> Most notable application that uses CC-BY-3.0 is Deluge BitTorrent client:
> Files: deluge/deluge/ui/web/icons/*
> Copyright: Furgue icons from http://pinvoke.com/
> License: CC-BY-3.0
> Search in debian-legal list shown that topic question already was asked
> several times. Summary is follow:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/04/msg00027.html
> My own personal opinion is that CC-by-sa-v4.0 fails to meet the DFSG.
> ...
> Debian ftp masters seem to disagree with me on CC-v3.0 licenses: they
> seem to think that CC-by-sa-v3.0 and CC-by-v3.0 are acceptable for
> Debian main.
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/04/msg00032.html
> Reading them side-by-side: (CC-BY-SA 3.0 and 4.0)
> ....
> So it's no worse than 3.0 and I don't remember what I thought of that :-)
> > [2]: https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
> I'll update that now.
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2013/08/msg00015.html
> Secondly, it's true that FTP-masters currently accept works licensed
> under CC-by-sa-v3.0 and under CC-by-v3.0 into Debian main.
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/01/msg00084.html
> AFAICT, the status is as follows:
> a) works licensed under the terms of CC-by-v3.0 seem to be currently
> accepted by FTP-masters as DFSG-free
> b) some people (mostly myself!) disagree with this conclusion and have
> explained their position repeatedly on this list and elsewhere, but
> (unfortunately!) failed to gain consensus
> ...
> as far as the Debian Project is concerned, is the FTP-masters' one: they
> are the real decision-makers.
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/01/msg00085.html
> Re: is CC BY 3.0 DFSG-free, again
> I don't know which previous discussions you refer to, but reviewing the
> licenses, the *only* difference I see between CC BY 3.0 and CC BY-SA 3.0 is
> that CC BY-SA includes an *additional* restriction relative the CC BY (the
> copyleft requirement).
> Therefore, if CC BY-SA 3.0 is ok, CC BY 3.0 is also ok.
> While I can't find official decision about CC-BY 3.0/4.0 it seems acceptable
> with only complain from single person (see above quotations).
> Main problem with this issue is NEED TO SEARCH OVER MAIL LIST FOR EACH
> interested person. I personally spent 1 hour to figure out state of license
> (that it currently is acceptable).
> Please may any update https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses page to describe
> current practice for CC-BY 3.0/4.0?
> I can do it myself but afraid edit wars.
> Also I frustrated with docs:
> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-short-name
> Why include shortening for CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-ND? Or this abbreviation for
> packages from 'non-free' section?
Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@ubuntu.com>:
> CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC-BY-SA 4.0 are both DFSG free.
> CC-BY-SA 2.5 is not.
> Any CC license with -NC is nonfree.
> On 2015-11-01, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Oleksandr Gavenko <gavenkoa@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC-BY-SA 4.0 are both DFSG free.
> >
> > CC-BY-SA 2.5 is not.
> >
> > Any CC license with -NC is nonfree.
> >
> I already known that info, it present on
> https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
> My question about:
> > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Oleksandr Gavenko <gavenkoa@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> describe current practice for CC-BY 3.0/4.0?
> CC-BY is different from CC-BY-SA:
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
> BY without SA is fine. ND and NC are not.
> Its basically copyleft vs permissive. Non-SA works don't ensure derived works are also in the Commons.
> On Nov 1, 2015 3:22 PM, "Oleksandr Gavenko" <gavenkoa@gmail.com> wrote:
================================================================
В общем мне не ясно почему явно не сказать про CC-BY на wiki.
И не ясно почему важные моменты прописаны на world-writable wiki.
Можно прикрываться что это демократия, но по настоящему это ...во
--
http://defun.work/
Reply to: