On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:41:12 +0100 Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> Francesco Poli escribe:
> > As I previously stated (in this same thread), my personal opinion on
> > CC-v3.0 licenses is that they fail to meet the DFSG. Other people
> > disagree with me, though.
>
> Maybe a big part of the pr
Francesco Poli escribe:
> As I previously stated (in this same thread), my personal opinion on
> CC-v3.0 licenses is that they fail to meet the DFSG. Other people
> disagree with me, though.
Maybe a big part of the problem is that licenses which are ok for
documentation or software works are not
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
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
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
>
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
think the same problems apply to 2.5).
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Julien Cristau escribe:
> CC-* before 3.0 are non-free
Why exactly!?
pgpQT25CqkVgT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Mar 9, 2007 at 08:34:30 +0100, Mathieu Stumpf wrote:
> Great, there are 996 songs under CC-by (2.0+2.5) if I just look at
> dogmazic.net.
>
CC-* before 3.0 are non-free, CC-by 3.0 is probably ok, IIRC.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "un
Great, there are 996 songs under CC-by (2.0+2.5) if I just look at
dogmazic.net.
Thank you, that's a clear answer. Now I can go ahead! :)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mathieu Stumpf escribe:
> Well, all that is great, but what should I understand with all that, is
> there no license under which I can find songs that debian would accept
> in the main repository?
>
AFAIK CC-by would allow it.
> Please make a short and clear answer. :)
Hopefully mine is. :)
No
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My opinion is based on the contribution of debian-legal participants, of
> the workgroup participants, and of my own review of the licenses.
I don't doubt that. However, that's still your opinion rather than the
Workgroup's. I don't mean anything bad by that.
Well, all that is great, but what should I understand with all that, is
there no license under which I can find songs that debian would accept
in the main repository?
Please make a short and clear answer. :)
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 00:32:44 + Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On 3/5/07, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > As far as CC-v3.0 are concerned, my personal opinion should be clear
> > from the message[2] that you yourself cite: I don't think that any
> > CC-v3.0 license meets the DFSG. Oth
On Tue, 2007-06-03 at 10:06 +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > In his role as DPL, that same ftp-master (or "archive maintainer", if
> > you prefer) has endorsed [2] the Debian Creative Commons Workgroup
> > which opined [3] that the CCPL 3.0 is suitable for Debian main. [...]
>
> I think [3]'s the opinion
Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> In his role as DPL, that same ftp-master (or "archive maintainer", if
> you prefer) has endorsed [2] the Debian Creative Commons Workgroup
> which opined [3] that the CCPL 3.0 is suitable for Debian main. [...]
I think [3]'s the opinion of the Wor
On 3/5/07, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As far as CC-v3.0 are concerned, my personal opinion should be clear
from the message[2] that you yourself cite: I don't think that any
CC-v3.0 license meets the DFSG. Other people disagree with me, though.
You didn't find any "final answer"
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 12:42:49 +0100 Mathieu Stumpf wrote:
> Okay, I'm planning to make some maps for stepmanie[1], but I would
> like to map songs that will have no legal problem to be include in
> Debian.
I really appreciate that you thought about this aspect *before* doing
all the work (that is t
Okay, I'm planning to make some maps for stepmanie[1], but I would like to
map songs that will have no legal problem to be include in Debian.
So I red some threads but I didn't find any final answer, are CC 3.0[2] (and
which one?) and free art license okay with the DFSG[3]?
Regards etc.
[1] htt
18 matches
Mail list logo
