discuss: license issues
Subject:
Re: license issues
From:
Mary Gardiner ####@####.####
Date:
28 Apr 2004 01:23:18 -0000
Message-Id: <20040428012314.GC8378@titus.home.puzzling.org>
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004, Rick Moen wrote:
> Thus, for example, nobody ever posted any serious, credible DFSG
> objection to the Creative Commons Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike,
> and ShareAlike version 1.0 licences or 2.0 drafts -- poster Nathanael
> Nerode's complaint about trademark licensing nothwithstanding.
There is a draft summary of the conclusion that CC's Attribution Licence
is *not* DFSG-free at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200404/msg00017.html
There have been several followups to this mail which suggests changes
and point to unclear parts of the summary, but none that say "go away
you nutcase, this was in no way the conclusion of the list".
A corrected version is available at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200404/msg00031.html
This appears to be the list's most recent CC-Attribution discussion, and
it does appear to be authored by a contributor to the discussion
beginning at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200403/msg00267.html
who isn't Nathanael Nerode. Nerode states that his personal opinion is
that it *is* free (but not GPL compatible) at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200403/msg00268.html
-Mary
