On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:47:37 +0200 Miriam Ruiz wrote: > Hi, > > I plan to file an ITP and package a cute small game [...] > All the game code is licensed under the GPL 2.0.
Good. > All the game content, > sounds and graphics are licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 > Attribution license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ ). Ouch! :-( > > As I understand, CC-by 3.0 is DFSG-free. My personal opinion is that *none* of CC-v3.0 licenses meets the DFSG. They are *not* acceptable, IMO. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00024.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00023.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/02/msg00059.html and the threads that followed. > The only potentially > DFSG-freeness problem I can see is the DRM limitation, and then again > GNU FDL also has it and is perfectly DFSG according to the last GR > about it. I see other DFSG-freeness issues in CC-v3.0 licenses besides the anti-DRM clause, but anyway GR-2006-001 (http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001) did *not* decide anything about CC licenses, nor about license clauses in general. The decision taken by GR-2006-001 was just about the GFDL, which was (absurdly, IMO) judged acceptable (when no part of the work is unmodifiable/unremovable), without explaining why. > > Anyway, I prefer to ask about it first: Does anyone know if CC-by 3.0 > is DFSG-free or not for sure, shall I go ahead and put it in the > repositories? I personally think CC-v3.0 licensed works should *not* enter Debian main. IANADD, IANAL. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpzvIVDwCIxs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
