Thanks for all the feedback! The majority of the discussion seems to have shifted to CC-BY-SA 3.0, even though my initial question was about GPL v3. Let me first summarize the comments on the creative commons discussion.
Kudos to Olive for making the most useful distinction in this discussion: it is not about whether or not CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are "free", but whether or not CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are free according to the DFSG. Are they *DFSG-free* or not? So yes, it *is* a GR-vote who decides here. Because the DFSG are only changed or clarified by such a vote. FYI, My personal opinion is that CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are clearly created with the intention of keeping a work available for other to build upon it, and are thus "free" or "Freek-free", since it is my, Freek's, definition of free. (Hmm, that name a nice ring to it ;-) .). Clearly, "Freek-free" and "Francesco-free" are not equal. Not surprising: there is always a trade-off in freeness. We probably all agree that allowing someone to take existing work, claim it as his/her own, and exploit it is actually a freedom for that person. However, it is a freedom that we like to limit, to allow others to experience similar freedoms. Freedom is a trade-off, and so there are multiple definitions. Anyway, it is my opinion that the DFSG should be clarified, and allow CC licensed work in main. But for now, package authors should be cautious. Note that the discussion actually applies to both BY and BY-SA creative commons licenses: both have the anti-TPM clause, even though I only quoted BY-SA. OK, enough about CC. My original question was about GPLv3. I was utterly confused by an anti-TPM clause in there, and wondered how it differs from the CC anti-TPM clause. Ben Finney was kind enough to explain to me: > The difference is: one is a restriction, the other is not. > > It [The GPL anti-TPM clause] is instead a declaration: the licensor, > by choosing these license terms for a work, states explicitly that > the work isn't an "effective technological measure" under copyright > law. The intent is that this in effect prevents certain restrictive > laws from applying to recipients of the work. I agree that in the legal wording, this is a big difference in approach: - The CC explicitly restricts derivatives with TPM (e.g. DRM'ed) - In the GPLv3 the author asserts that his/her work does not apply TPM. Correct? However, the GPL *does* restrict an author in the choice of license for derivative works: he/she can choose the GPLv3. So effectively, GPLv3 is forcing authors to assert that he/she does not apply TPM, and thus restricts authors not to use technology protective measures. So while the method is rather different, the end-result is exactly the same. At least, so it seems to me. So I asl my question again: In this light, doesn't that make GPLv3 just a free or non-free (in particular DSFG-free or DSFG-non-free) as CC-BY and CC-BY-SA? Regards, Freek (Wishing life was as easy as my disclaimer) -- Disclaimer: This is an e-mail message. Use your own judgment about its value. If you do not have such common sense (e.g. you are a lawyer) or you like to see crap like warranties, intended-audience or as-is statements, then the following applies: you do not understand the concept of satire and are not allowed to read this e-mail. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
