Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?

2007-03-10 Thread Ben Finney
"Michael Gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Looking further, I could not find any Debian-approved licenses for > creative (non-software) works [2], [3]. Is the Debian approach to > just use a software license like GPL or BSD for creative content? Those licenses can apply to any software, not

Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?

2007-03-10 Thread Andrew Donnellan
On 3/11/07, Michael Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've read up and found the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses are specifically disallowed by Debian (well GFDL with non-invariant sections seems ok, but does that make sense for creative/audio content?). Looking further, I could not find any

Debian-approved creative/content license?

2007-03-10 Thread Michael Gilbert
Hello, On the latest Linux Action Show [1], there was discussion about freeing their title track and content of their show. I was going to respond and suggest the right way to do this, but quickly found that there is no clear answer (especially when it comes to Debian). I've read up and found t

Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG

2007-03-10 Thread Francesco Poli
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:21:34 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: > Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > > [...] I also believe that a large number of debian-legal > > participants have said that the DRM clause, as it stands, is free > > enough to allow distribution under DRM if such DRM is not > > "ef

Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG

2007-03-10 Thread Francesco Poli
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:35:57 -0500 Evan Prodromou wrote: [...] > That includes the amended revocation and > attribution clauses that Francesco is concerned with; we thought they > were sufficiently softened that they were not an effective prevention > of licensors exercising their freedom. A soft

Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG

2007-03-10 Thread Francesco Poli
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 13:56:47 +0100 Julien Cristau wrote: > On Fri, Mar 9, 2007 at 13:41:35 +0100, Ismael Valladolid Torres > wrote: > > > Julien Cristau escribe: > > > CC-* before 3.0 are non-free > > > > Why exactly!? > > See http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary (this is about 2.0, but I >

Re: [RFC]: firmware-ipw2200, acceptable for non-free?

2007-03-10 Thread Marco d'Itri
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >This sounds like another cheap excuse: I cannot believe that the law >really says that *Intel* is responsible if *I* modify an Intel WiFi card >so that it exceeds regulatory limits... Too bad. But their laywers do, and this is what matters. >Intel should be able to sell