discuss: license issues
Subject:
Re: license issues
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
28 Apr 2004 01:33:12 -0000
Message-Id: <20040428013309.GY19884@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting Rahul Sundaram ####@####.####
> http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?DFSGLicences
>
> seems like none of the documentation licenses that are
> usually called free are accepted by debian.
Just as further to my comments in reply to Mary Gardiner:
The above wiki page points to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200404/msg00031.html
as allegedly supporting the Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 licence
being considered DFSG-non-free. Poster says:
When any Licensor asks, all references to their name(s) must be
purged from the work. This restricts modification (DFSG 3).
However, this doesn't meaningfully "restrict modification" in the sense
intended by DFSG #3:
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of
the original software.
The intent of DFSG is to express the right to fork, the key attribute of
open source (free) licensing. The author reserving the right to expunge
his author credit _clearly_ does not meaningfully inhibit that right.
Poster says:
Use of the "Creative Commons" trademark (or related trademark or
logo) appears to be a license violation, and thus grounds for a
copyright holder to revoke the license. This violates the "Tentacles
of Evil" test[1] and can remove all freedoms the license grants.
First of all, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Second,
the licence does _not_ ban use of the "Creative Commons" trademark name or
logo. It merely states:
Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the
Work is licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use the trademark
"Creative Commons" or any related trademark or logo of Creative Commons
without the prior written consent of Creative Commons. Any permitted
use will be in compliance with Creative Commons' then-current
trademark usage guidelines, as may be published on its website or
otherwise made available upon request from time to time.
Third, there's no earthly reason why any conceivable legitimate
derivative work _would_ use those marks other than to identify the
licensing.
Poster says:
It appears (though it's slightly unclear) that credit to original
author(s) must be as prominently displayed, and in the same location,
as credit to any other author. This restricts modification (DFSG 3).
Again, the licence does not meaningfully restrict creation of derivative
works. It states:
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.
How could a reasonable person allege that this provision prevents
creation and propagation under similar licence terms of modifications
and derivative works? It doesn't.
But then, that poster is not a reasonable person. QED.
(And yes, I note that he had the gall to write "Debian-legal has
concluded" based on his wacky interpretation, and note that the wiki
points to this one guy's post as "discussion [sic] on debian-legal".
Quelle chutzpah.)
--
Cheers, "A raccoon tangled with a 23,000 volt line, today. The results
Rick Moen blacked out 1400 homes and, of course, one raccoon."
####@####.#### -- Steel City News
