Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we need to stay focused somewhere in the middle. A good metric > is to be suspicious of any language that appears non-free, absent other > information. In other words, err on the conservative side.
I'd tend to agree, though I'm not sure that that's being desperately conservative. > Down to brass tacks: if you think that there are parts of the Creative > Commons summary where we are leaning over backwards to see a problem > where none exists, please let me know. We _do_ need to bring it into a > final form sooner rather than later. I'm not convinced by the trademark argument - I think it's pretty clear from the HTML that it's not intended to be part of the license. Yes, it would be better if that was made clearer, but: a) CC appear to have said that it's not part of the license, and: b) CC are the people who would care about us using their trademark It's /possible/ that a copyright holder could claim that we're infringing their license because we use the phrase "Creative Commons" somewhere within the distribution, but I don't think it's likely and I'm not convinced that they'd have any significant legal leg to stand on. So, while it would be great if they'd clarify things, I don't think it's enough to make it non-free. I tend to agree with the other issues, with more concern over the DRM and removal of credits than the authorship credit - I'm not sure how well we've got our act together on forming a firm opinion on that. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
