On 2004-07-09 10:53:35 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Brian M. Carlson:
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00031.html
This is a different license, version 1.0 of the Attribution license.
The current version 2.0 of the Attribution Share-Alike license does
not seem to have those problems.
I think there are still problems with works under 2.0. There's an
additional problem that most people include the CC trademark terms as
part of their copyright licence because CC haven't clearly indicated
the end of the licence.
[...] We still can make a case-by-case decision, as suggested
in <http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg00121.html>.
That URL suggests that some debian-legal regulars have argued against
DFSG evasion for documentation many times, which probably isn't what
you meant to post.
The licence seems to refer only to "software" and not "programs". I
don't see a problem in putting the documentation included under the
same licence. If greater clarity is desired, one could clearly define
"software" covered by the licence somehow, such as the programs and
other included material relating to them. IANAL but I don't remember a
lawyer pointing me at a software-program equivalence in law; in fact,
quite the opposite.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
"Before we try to work out if he's competent,
let's work out if he's conscious." (anon. exam marker)
