On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:02:02 -0800 Jeff Carr wrote: > On 01/05/07 16:43, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > Mmmmh, I'm not convinced about the DFSG-freeness of > > CC-by-sa-2.5/scotland either... > > That's good, I'm not convinced that CC in any form isn't DFSG. :) > It seems to me the CC is written with the same kind of mentality and > intentions that the DFSG was written.
"CC in any form"?!? Even CC licenses with ND and/or NC elements?!? I really doubt the DFSG were written with the intentions of forbidding modifications (see DFSG#3) or commercial use (see DFSG#6). Are we talking of the *same* DFSG? [...] > > I'm sorry to say this, but I don't think the current drafts are > > DFSG-free and I have few hopes that the finat texts will be > > substantially different from the current drafts. > > > > See > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/10/msg00167.html > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-November/004472.html > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-December/004779.html > > for further details. > > Well, these are a bit extreme I think. I'm not finding the arguments > convincing. Can you please provide a convincing rebuttal of my arguments? P.S.: Please do _not_ reply to my personal e-mail address, while Cc:ing the list address, as I didn't ask you to do so. Please follow the code of conduct on Debian lists: http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct Thanks. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/releas-o-meter.html Try our amazing Releas-o-meter! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpNRV4J4GEGH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
