On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 12:21 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote: > I think it is in the spirit of the Creative Commons licenses not to > require a transparent copy for editing.
That's true. However, for a work to be DFSG-free, source code must be supplied. > Therefore, I think it would be wrong to "fix" the Creative Commons > licenses by smuggling in a requirement for transparent copy in a > license update. I think in general I'd prefer we go with the minimal changes necessary to make the licenses DFSG-free. ~Evan -- Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
