<quote who="MJ Ray" date="2005-03-30 22:15:15 +0000"> > "Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, if we treat this as a freedom issue in situations where the > > licensor has created a new version that does not include the > > comment/bounding box and/or where we have reason to believe the > > licensor feels that this is in fact part of the license, but do not > > treat this as a freeodm issue when documents are licensed in the > > normal way with a hyperlink to this page, would it be alright with > > you? I apologize if I misunderstood. > > It's clearly not "a freedom issue" when the licensor includes the > licence on their pages without the trademark terms. I'm not sure > about the situation when they just link to the ambiguous page > which has had clarifications issued in obscure places by CC (along > with statements relying on the US view of "fair use" IIRC).
Great. The latter case is by far the most common. If you go to the CC website, it instructs people to license their works through linking. That's why they don't provide a copy suitable for inclusion with a work. > I reject your attempt to make me decide without extra data. What extra data do you need? > In another view: I'd not complain to the licensor nor object to > stuff going in debian if that was the only problem, but it's not and > I'm not going to endorse WCAG-busting practice. Nobody's asking you to like it or endorse it. I'm just trying to get us all to seperate freedom issues from accessibility issues, or less-than-ideal wording issues, or any other non-freedom issue. > > Of course, in any situation, we should lobby to have this > > changed. I'm just trying to divide the must-have freedom issues > > from the "it can and should be changed" issues. > > So what's the practical difference? For example, would you give > this matter time at a scheduled meeting with CC people? Absolutely! A good way to run these sorts of meetings is to separate the essential freedom issues from the confusing text issues and sort of work down an agenda that way make it clear what we think are the high priority issues and the less high priority issues with a clear freedom/need-to-have line drawn where appropriate. Of course, we should make a case for everything we want to change. Not all bugs in the license are equal and it's important to know what would keep the license non-free and what would make it free so we any negotiating committee can focus the energy most effectively. This is something that was lacking in the GFDL discussions and that has caused a lot of time, thinking, and discussion that I think could have been avoided. I'd like to head this off at the pass now and do it openly and transparently. :) > If you're really wondering about the priorities for fixing, > I'd say: author name purge, anti-DRM, comparable credit, > trademark licence presentation. However, I suspect the fixes in > easiest-first order are: presentation, purge, credit, anti-DRM. Good to know. I think I'd personally put anti-DRM below comparable credit and draw the freedom line between those two but I'm willing to defer to the majority opinion of course. :) I am not going to speculate on which will be easiest but your list sounds as sane as any. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
