Status of CC-BY 3.0/4.0?
https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses have no conclusion about CC-BY 3.0/4.0 licenses. My system (up to date testing) already have CC-BY packages: $ cat /usr/share/doc/*/copyright | command grep -i ^license:.*CC | sort | uniq -c ... 10 License: CC-BY 33 License: CC-BY-3.0 1 License: CC-BY-3.0-US ... Most notable application that uses CC-BY-3.0 is Deluge BitTorrent client: Files: deluge/deluge/ui/web/icons/* Copyright: Furgue icons from http://pinvoke.com/ License: CC-BY-3.0 Search in debian-legal list shown that topic question already was asked several times. Summary is follow: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/04/msg00027.html My own personal opinion is that CC-by-sa-v4.0 fails to meet the DFSG. ... Debian ftp masters seem to disagree with me on CC-v3.0 licenses: they seem to think that CC-by-sa-v3.0 and CC-by-v3.0 are acceptable for Debian main. https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/04/msg00032.html Reading them side-by-side: (CC-BY-SA 3.0 and 4.0) So it's no worse than 3.0 and I don't remember what I thought of that :-) > [2]: https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses I'll update that now. https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2013/08/msg00015.html Secondly, it's true that FTP-masters currently accept works licensed under CC-by-sa-v3.0 and under CC-by-v3.0 into Debian main. https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/01/msg00084.html AFAICT, the status is as follows: a) works licensed under the terms of CC-by-v3.0 seem to be currently accepted by FTP-masters as DFSG-free b) some people (mostly myself!) disagree with this conclusion and have explained their position repeatedly on this list and elsewhere, but (unfortunately!) failed to gain consensus ... as far as the Debian Project is concerned, is the FTP-masters' one: they are the real decision-makers. https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/01/msg00085.html Re: is CC BY 3.0 DFSG-free, again I don't know which previous discussions you refer to, but reviewing the licenses, the *only* difference I see between CC BY 3.0 and CC BY-SA 3.0 is that CC BY-SA includes an *additional* restriction relative the CC BY (the copyleft requirement). Therefore, if CC BY-SA 3.0 is ok, CC BY 3.0 is also ok. While I can't find official decision about CC-BY 3.0/4.0 it seems acceptable with only complain from single person (see above quotations). Main problem with this issue is NEED TO SEARCH OVER MAIL LIST FOR EACH interested person. I personally spent 1 hour to figure out state of license (that it currently is acceptable). Please may any update https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses page to describe current practice for CC-BY 3.0/4.0? I can do it myself but afraid edit wars. Also I frustrated with docs: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-short-name Why include shortening for CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-ND? Or this abbreviation for packages from 'non-free' section? Please don't remove my CC, as I am not subscribed to list. -- Best regards!
Re: Status of CC-BY 3.0/4.0?
CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC-BY-SA 4.0 are both DFSG free. CC-BY-SA 2.5 is not. Any CC license with -NC is nonfree. Thanks! Paul On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Oleksandr Gavenko wrote: > https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses have no conclusion about CC-BY > 3.0/4.0 > licenses. > > My system (up to date testing) already have CC-BY packages: > > $ cat /usr/share/doc/*/copyright | command grep -i ^license:.*CC | sort > | uniq -c > > ... > 10 License: CC-BY > 33 License: CC-BY-3.0 > 1 License: CC-BY-3.0-US > ... > > Most notable application that uses CC-BY-3.0 is Deluge BitTorrent client: > > Files: deluge/deluge/ui/web/icons/* > Copyright: Furgue icons from http://pinvoke.com/ > License: CC-BY-3.0 > > Search in debian-legal list shown that topic question already was asked > several times. Summary is follow: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/04/msg00027.html > My own personal opinion is that CC-by-sa-v4.0 fails to meet the DFSG. > ... > Debian ftp masters seem to disagree with me on CC-v3.0 licenses: they > seem to think that CC-by-sa-v3.0 and CC-by-v3.0 are acceptable for > Debian main. > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/04/msg00032.html > Reading them side-by-side: (CC-BY-SA 3.0 and 4.0) > > So it's no worse than 3.0 and I don't remember what I thought of that > :-) > > [2]: https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses > I'll update that now. > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2013/08/msg00015.html > Secondly, it's true that FTP-masters currently accept works licensed > under CC-by-sa-v3.0 and under CC-by-v3.0 into Debian main. > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/01/msg00084.html > AFAICT, the status is as follows: > a) works licensed under the terms of CC-by-v3.0 seem to be currently > accepted by FTP-masters as DFSG-free > b) some people (mostly myself!) disagree with this conclusion and > have > explained their position repeatedly on this list and elsewhere, > but > (unfortunately!) failed to gain consensus > ... > as far as the Debian Project is concerned, is the FTP-masters' one: > they > are the real decision-makers. > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/01/msg00085.html > Re: is CC BY 3.0 DFSG-free, again > I don't know which previous discussions you refer to, but reviewing the > licenses, the *only* difference I see between CC BY 3.0 and CC BY-SA > 3.0 is > that CC BY-SA includes an *additional* restriction relative the CC BY > (the > copyleft requirement). > > Therefore, if CC BY-SA 3.0 is ok, CC BY 3.0 is also ok. > > While I can't find official decision about CC-BY 3.0/4.0 it seems > acceptable > with only complain from single person (see above quotations). > > Main problem with this issue is NEED TO SEARCH OVER MAIL LIST FOR EACH > interested person. I personally spent 1 hour to figure out state of license > (that it currently is acceptable). > > Please may any update https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses page to > describe > current practice for CC-BY 3.0/4.0? > > I can do it myself but afraid edit wars. > > Also I frustrated with docs: > > > https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-short-name > > Why include shortening for CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-ND? Or this abbreviation for > packages from 'non-free' section? > > Please don't remove my CC, as I am not subscribed to list. > > -- > Best regards! > > -- All programmers are playwrights, and all computers are lousy actors. #define sizeof(x) rand() :wq
Re: Status of CC-BY 3.0/4.0?
BY without SA is fine. ND and NC are not. Its basically copyleft vs permissive. Non-SA works don't ensure derived works are also in the Commons. On Nov 1, 2015 3:22 PM, "Oleksandr Gavenko" wrote: > On 2015-11-01, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > > > CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC-BY-SA 4.0 are both DFSG free. > > > > CC-BY-SA 2.5 is not. > > > > Any CC license with -NC is nonfree. > > > I already known that info, it present on > > https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses > > My question about: > > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Oleksandr Gavenko > > wrote: > >> > >> describe current practice for CC-BY 3.0/4.0? > > CC-BY is different from CC-BY-SA: > > https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ > > https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ > > -- > Best regards! >
Re: Status of CC-BY 3.0/4.0?
On 2015-11-01, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC-BY-SA 4.0 are both DFSG free. > > CC-BY-SA 2.5 is not. > > Any CC license with -NC is nonfree. > I already known that info, it present on https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses My question about: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Oleksandr Gavenko > wrote: >> >> describe current practice for CC-BY 3.0/4.0? CC-BY is different from CC-BY-SA: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ -- Best regards!
