On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:53:30AM +0100, b...@debian.org wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:55:40AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Nils Dagsson Moskopp writes:
> > > Developers often point to the music they used for the reason behind
> > > that and claim that the sc
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:55:40AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Nils Dagsson Moskopp writes:
> > Developers often point to the music they used for the reason behind
> > that and claim that the scope of the Creative Commons ShareAlike
> > licensing requires that code must a
>> It would likely cost a few thousands of dollars to purchase a
>> better license for the music, so that's the reason for the
>> license.
>
> I sincerely doubt that a game must necessarily be considered an
> adaption of its background music – since usually, game and music
> are very loosely coupl
.
To me, one of the most common problems with visual novel licensing seems
to be that many authors choose a Creative Commons license which features
Attribution, ShareAlike (copyleft), and NonCommercial (no commercial use
allowed), in short CC BY-NC-SA. Developers often point to the music they
used for
frob.nl> writes:
> On 28.11.2013 13:27, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Le Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:03:31PM +0100, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
> >> On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Paul Wise wrote:
> >> > Mike Linksvayer suggests upgrading to CC0 instead:
> >> This is not a good idea: CC0 is up for a rework too, they
On 28.11.2013 13:27, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:03:31PM +0100, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Paul Wise wrote:
> Mike Linksvayer suggests upgrading to CC0 instead:
This is not a good idea: CC0 is up for a rework too, they
just decided to get CC 4.0 out of
Le Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:03:31PM +0100, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> > Mike Linksvayer suggests upgrading to CC0 instead:
>
> This is not a good idea: CC0 is up for a rework too, they
> just decided to get CC 4.0 out of the door first, and the
> current
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Paul Wise wrote:
> Mike Linksvayer suggests upgrading to CC0 instead:
This is not a good idea: CC0 is up for a rework too, they
just decided to get CC 4.0 out of the door first, and the
current CC0 version is *explicitly* discouraged for use
with software. (Also, Public Domai
On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 10:01 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768
Mike Linksvayer suggests upgrading to CC0 instead:
http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2013/11/25/upgrade-to-0/
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digi
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
http://blog.thesilentnumber.me/2012/08/stop-inclusion-of-proprietary-licenses.html
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Greg Grossmeier wrote:
>
>> I hope some of these thoughts spill over into the games development
>> community.
>
> Very timely of you to say that :)
>
> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32322
> "Announcing the Liberated Pixel Cup: an epic contest for gaming
> I hope some of these thoughts spill over into the games development
> community.
Very timely of you to say that :)
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32322
"Announcing the Liberated Pixel Cup: an epic contest for gaming freedom"
CC & FSF doing a joint competition.
Greg
--
| Greg Gross
Thanks for the replies. It is good to hear CC folks are thinking about
source stuff, the discussions you pointed at were quite interesting. I
hope some of these thoughts spill over into the games development
community.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to d
>
> > AFAICT Creative Commons folks never think about this aspect of Free
> > Culture.
>
> Donning my CC hat now (I work for CC):
> CC definitely thinks about the issue whenever it is relevant. However,
> changing the main 6 (well, 4 if you throw out the 2 ND license
> AFAICT Creative Commons folks never think about this aspect of Free
> Culture.
Donning my CC hat now (I work for CC):
CC definitely thinks about the issue whenever it is relevant. However,
changing the main 6 (well, 4 if you throw out the 2 ND licenses, which
would make sense in this ca
output
from an ELF binary. One rare exception to that I'm aware of is the NIN
songs (that were licensed non-freely); NIN released the source data
and mixing info. AFAICT Creative Commons folks never think about this
aspect of Free Culture.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWi
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> > Sadly Creative Commons are still peddling non-free licenses :(
> >
> > https://lwn.net/Articles/490202/
>
> Why do you find this sad? There are licenses needed for things other
> than free software.
Some
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> Sadly Creative Commons are still peddling non-free licenses :(
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/490202/
Why do you find this sad? There are licenses needed for things other
than free software.
--
Chris
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deb
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 12:58:11 -0500 Gunnar Wolf wrote:
[...]
> I know Francesco Poli, quite active in this list, has been following
> up lately much closer than me.
Yes, I am currently involved in the public comment of the CC-v4.0draft1
(hi, Gunnar!).
> I have identified other Debian people
> in
Paul Wise dijo [Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 01:17:29AM +0800]:
> Sadly Creative Commons are still peddling non-free licenses :(
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/490202/
Right... Well, and I must admit something here in public: When the CC
4.0 draft process started¹ on December 2011, I volunteered
Sadly Creative Commons are still peddling non-free licenses :(
https://lwn.net/Articles/490202/
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:26:09 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> So, to turn this into something even more useful: is there anyone
> willing to keep an eye on the CC process on behalf of Debian?
>
> The ideal candidate should be a license geek in agreement with the
> current position of the Debian
Stefano Zacchiroli dijo [Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:26:09AM +0100]:
> > I hope Debian folks (especially ftpmasters) will be willing to
> > subscribe to the cc-licenses list and help ensure that the CC 4.0
> > licenses will be suitable for Debian.
> (...)
> So, to turn this into something even more use
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 07:12:19AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> I think we need to ensure that the version 4.0 licenses do not regress
> in their acceptability for Debian.
Agreed.
> I hope Debian folks (especially ftpmasters) will be willing to
> subscribe to the cc-licenses list and help ensure tha
Hi all,
This mail is to advise you that the process for creating the 4.0
versions of the Creative Commons licenses has started:
https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/30676
https://lwn.net/Articles/471803/
I think we need to ensure that the version 4.0 licenses do not regress
in their
that CC licenses could be "few enough"?!?
I am personally under the impression that Creative Commons has been a
"license proliferation festival" since the beginning of the their
activity... :-(
[1] http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl
[2] http://creativecommons.org/licen
the same approach could be taken with the Expat
license; this is not a distinguishing feature of the Creative Commons
licenses.
One could, except for the fact that the Expact License terms assume that the
license is included as part of the work itself, alongside the copyright
notice. It is someh
"Joe Smith" writes:
> The legal code is long and complex, because it can be. The whole point
> of the Creative Commons
> Licenses is that the license text is not included with the work, but
> instead just the license URL is included.
I'd hardly call that “the whole
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Joe Smith wrote:
>
> Thus the CC0 licence takes only one line to apply to a work.
>
> #makes this work avilable under CC0
> (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)
The CC folks prefer that you use this actually:
To the extent possible under law, has
Ben Finney wrote
Yes. If anything, the length of verbiage that Creative Commons feels
necessary to effectively place a work in the public domain, under the
current copyright regime, only supports the idea that it's
significantly *more* complicated than working with copyright and usi
xt) is a much simpler choice and
> achieves a very similar result, without most of the complications.
Yes. If anything, the length of verbiage that Creative Commons feels
necessary to effectively place a work in the public domain, under the
current copyright regime, only supports the ide
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:39:19 +0900 Paul Wise wrote:
[...]
> Since it is meant as a more universal public domain dedication, I'd
> expect it would meet the DFSG.
I read it through and I failed to spot any freeness issue.
Hence, I think a work associated with the CC0 declaration/license
complies w
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> Here is a copy/paste of the the legal code for CC0 1.0 Universal for
> -legal regulars to dissect:
I should also point out the human-readable summary:
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
CC0 1.0 Universal
No Copyright
This li
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Maximilian Gaß wrote:
> with the recent release of CC0 by Creative Commons, I wonder what your
> opinions on it are about using this for software that might be included in
> Debian?
Since it is meant as a more universal public domain dedication, I&#x
Hello d-legal,
with the recent release of CC0 by Creative Commons, I wonder what your
opinions on it are about using this for software that might be included in
Debian?
Regards,
Max
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
The following is a bit of a late reply, but I is probably still worth
making.
"Matthijs Kooijman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In short, I think it is better to avoid the matter alltogether and not try
to
make section 3 apply to this work. This automatically happ
(Please CC me on replies)
Hi Ben,
> > As some background, the works we are licensing are graphics for a
> > game. These are mostly created through 3D modeling. For this, mostly
> > Blender files are rendered into the pcx bitmap format. These pcx
> > files are sometimes manually post processed, an
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [Defining terms in the license grant] is a bad idea.
I should note that this is not just defining terms in the license
grant; it's either a null operation, or it adds a class things to
object code which was no
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Defining terms in the license grant] is a bad idea. If GPLv2 does
> not actually mean this, you are adding an additional restriction. If
> it does, you're just wasting time. Neither option is terribly
> useful.
I see it differently. What the GPLv2 mean
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> Matthijs Kooijman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Re-license the entire work under the GPLv2, and clarify your grant
> of license to use the simple definition of terms from the GPLv3.
> This would have a license grant something like:
>
> This work is free
Matthijs Kooijman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We've had a better look at the GPL and it does seem quite suitable.
Thanks for progressing with this, and reporting your further thoughts
and questions.
> As some background, the works we are licensing are graphics for a
> game. These are mostly cr
Hi all,
> There's no real reason why the GPL itself would not be suitable. In
> fact, in most cases, it's what you actually want, because having the
> prefered form of modification for the images and audio avaiable is the
> best thing to help make minor changes and bug fixes to artwork and/or
> au
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:52:08 -0400 Arc Riley wrote:
> Did you check the source code to see if any additional clauses were added to
> the AGPLv3 before making this claim? Apparently not, and neither did
> Francesco
> Poli a little over a year ago when he made similar accusations based on text
> o
2008/9/19 Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Yes, I am upset this is the second time someone has made unfounded and
> unresearched claims on this list regarding "extra clauses" being applied to
> our software, and a good example why I'd prefer if Debian not have anything
> to do with our project.
T
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Jamie Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> That is your belief. I could release content (textures and level
> geometry) that I have been creating for my game right now, and it could
> be used by at least 6 other game engines, and a variety of utility
> programs.
The
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Ben Finney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> "Arc Riley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > IANAL and am not presenting a legal opinion. What I am speaking
> > about here is based on numerous conversations I've had with lawyers
> > in the "IP" (sic) f
"Arc Riley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IANAL and am not presenting a legal opinion. What I am speaking
> about here is based on numerous conversations I've had with lawyers
> in the "IP" (sic) field.
Such a "field" doesn't really exist. I think the only relevant field
for this discussion is co
"Arc Riley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In order to release it under the GPL (at least if you want people
> > to be able to distribute it), you have to release the uncompressed
> > audio or video
>
> Says who? You
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 14:35 -0400, Arc Riley wrote:
> IANAL and am not presenting a legal opinion. What I am speaking about
> here is based on numerous conversations I've had with lawyers in the
> "IP" (sic) field.
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Jamie Jones
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In order to release it under the GPL (at least if you want people to be
> able to distribute it), you have to release the uncompressed audio or video
Says who? You have to distribute the it in a form that's ready for
e
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote:
> There is absolutely no issue licensing game data under the (L/A)GPL. In
> fact, this is required for at least the GPLv3 in that the license applies to
> the "whole of the work, and all it's parts, regardless of how they are
> packaged". Thus if the game co
IANAL and am not presenting a legal opinion. What I am speaking about here
is based on numerous conversations I've had with lawyers in the "IP" (sic)
field.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Jamie Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> How do you define an entire work?
I've been told repeatedly that
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:34:03AM -0400, Arc Riley wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Jamie Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > Multiple tar.gz files could probably fix that - or requiring users to
> > checkout from the revision control system.
> GPLv3 section 5c (note bold text):
>
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote:
> Clearly you cannot escape the terms of the GPL by splitting the work into
> different packages, otherwise everyone would do this.
There are many cases where you can, actually.
game+working sample data, with more complex data distributed
separately is a clas
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 10:34 -0400, Arc Riley wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Jamie Jones
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Multiple tar.gz files could probably fix that - or requiring
> users to
> checkout from the revision control system.
>
> GPLv3 sectio
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 16:15 +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> 2008/9/18 Jamie Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Multiple tar.gz files could probably fix that - or requiring users to
> > checkout from the revision control system. That may very well mean the
> > data will be in non-free and the game in con
ant their game data to be Free[2].
[1] except perhaps for the attribution one, as long as the clause
requiring attribution is carefully drafted so that it meets the DFSG
(I personally think Creative Commons attribution clause fails to
meet the DFSG, but that's another story...)
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Jamie Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> Multiple tar.gz files could probably fix that - or requiring users to
> checkout from the revision control system.
GPLv3 section 5c (note bold text):
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
L
2008/9/18 Jamie Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Multiple tar.gz files could probably fix that - or requiring users to
> checkout from the revision control system. That may very well mean the
> data will be in non-free and the game in contrib, but that is not unlike
> GFDL licensed documentation that
(Please note I'm only subscribed to debian-devel-games)
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 15:43 -0400, Arc Riley wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> This might be really relevant for us, the Games Team, as there
> seem to
> be quite a lo
"Arc Riley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure at Linux.conf.au this year in the games miniconf,
> > someone from CC Australia was recomending the use of CC (-SA i think)
> > for game data, and said it didnt confli
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure at Linux.conf.au this year in the games miniconf,
> someone from CC Australia was recomending the use of CC (-SA i think)
> for game data, and said it didnt conflict with the GPL.
>
I too have heard people
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 21:21 +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> 2008/9/17 Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > There is absolutely no issue licensing game data under the (L/A)GPL. In
> > fact, this is required for at least the GPLv3 in that the license applies to
> > the "whole of the work, and all it's par
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This might be really relevant for us, the Games Team, as there seem to
> be quite a lot of games that have a different license for the engine
> and the game data, and the combination of GPL and CC-by-sa seems to be
> getting
2008/9/17 Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There is absolutely no issue licensing game data under the (L/A)GPL. In
> fact, this is required for at least the GPLv3 in that the license applies to
> the "whole of the work, and all it's parts, regardless of how they are
> packaged". Thus if the game
There is absolutely no issue licensing game data under the (L/A)GPL. In
fact, this is required for at least the GPLv3 in that the license applies to
the "whole of the work, and all it's parts, regardless of how they are
packaged". Thus if the game code or any dependencies (ie, the engine) are
li
Hi Walter,
> Dual license your work under GPL and whatever you like. Then there
> are no DFSG-freedom issues, and you can fix whatever problems you
> think exist in the GPL. It also simplifies things if we can treat the
> whole game+data as being under a single license.
This seems to say that yo
Matthijs Kooijman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> on the risk of touching a delicate subject, I'm looking for a license to put
> on some artistic content. In particular, the OpenTTD [1] game currently
> requires the use of non-free content to work. There is a project started to
> create f
Hi all,
on the risk of touching a delicate subject, I'm looking for a license to put
on some artistic content. In particular, the OpenTTD [1] game currently
requires the use of non-free content to work. There is a project started to
create free content, so the game as a whole can be made completel
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
> Attri
On May 31, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
The ftpmasters do.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi,
I plan to file an ITP and package a cute small game called "Which Way Is
Up?" ( http://hectigo.net/puskutraktori/whichwayisup/ ) and maintain it.
All the game code is licensed under the GPL 2.0. All the game content,
sounds and graphics are licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 A
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:14:27 -0500 Joe Smith wrote:
[...]
> Well that is just the non-legalese synopsis of the CC-by-2.5.
It seems so.
> It was not intended to be used as an actual licence text.
Definitely *not* intended.
> It certainly can be used as a licence text. (Just about anything can
>
"Matthew Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've seen a previous review from debian legal about the Creative Commons
licences which renders them non free. However, I've just come across
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Stephen Gran wrote:
All data files, except the songs and the font files mentioned above,
are licensed under the following license:
Creative Commons Deed Attribution 2.5
That looks fine.
cool
This one time, at band camp, Matthew Johnson said:
> I've seen a previous review from debian legal about the Creative Commons
> licences which renders them non free. However, I've just come across a licence
> claiming to be "Creative Commons Deed Attribution 2.5" wh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've seen a previous review from debian legal about the Creative Commons
licences which renders them non free. However, I've just come across a licence
claiming to be "Creative Commons Deed Attribution 2.5" which is considerably
s
On 01/13/07 11:09, Francesco Poli wrote:
> My MUA (sarge's Sylpheed) does not support the Mail-Followup-To: field
> and hence I should set it manually for each message I send.
Ya, I see now there was some patch floating around to sylpheed around
'02 that maybe fixed that (sylpheed-0.6.5claws25-li
On 01/12/07 19:43, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> Mail-Followup-To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
BTW, I noticed this line by looking at your emails since replies to
your emails work correctly.
> That's not how M-F-T is supposed to work. M-F-T is for specifying an
> *alternative* to the list address
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, this is because *your* MUA is broken. The Mail-Followup-To header is
> not a standard of any kind, which is why only a handful of (broken) MUAs
> implement it. And I mean broken, because it should be named X-Something
> until it gets standardized.
nt":
No it's not.
> CC promotes By and By-SA licenses as
> well as NC, ND and others. If there's a fault it's that they don't
> offer strong differentiation in that support.
Exactly that.
Creative Commons promotes a number of licenses ranging from
close-to-but-n
Le vendredi 12 janvier 2007 à 21:42 -0800, Jeff Carr a écrit :
> On 01/09/07 09:16, Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> > Please do _not_ reply to my personal e-mail address, while Cc:ing the
> > list address, as I didn't ask you to do so.
> > Please follow the code of conduct on Debian lists:
> > http://ww
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:42:49 -0800 Jeff Carr wrote:
> On 01/09/07 09:16, Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> > Please do _not_ reply to my personal e-mail address, while Cc:ing
> > the list address, as I didn't ask you to do so.
> > Please follow the code of conduct on Debian lists:
> > http://www.debian.o
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:53:50 -0800 Jeff Carr wrote:
> On 01/11/07 12:27, Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> > You seem to be happy with free programs whose documentation is
> > non-free.
>
> Well now, I'm not like that. It's not up to me if the authors choose a
> NC clause.
Of course, it's not up to you
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:07:30 -0800 Jeff Carr wrote:
> On 01/12/07 09:27, Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> >> Even though the existence of an optional clause (like NC) appears
> >> to contradict the DFSG in situations we can imagine, that does not
> >> rule out it's use will always contradict the DFSG fo
Jeff Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you could argue Bill Gates has been arbitrary and inconsistent
> on content ownership issues also (of course in different ways). Don't
> you think so?
I don't recall Bill Gates's views on that (they don't get discussed with
me as often as RMS's) but i
On 01/11/07 16:20, MJ Ray wrote:
>> Even Richard Stallman says that aesthetic works like books and music
>> don't have to be free.
>
> Not in the same way and he proposes different levels of freedom for
> different types of books, but I think Stallman is arbitrary and
> inconsistant about books a
On 01/12/07 09:27, Francesco Poli wrote:
>> Even though the existence of an optional clause (like NC) appears to
>> contradict the DFSG in situations we can imagine, that does not rule
>> out it's use will always contradict the DFSG for every case.
>
> I think it will: it forbids selling the work
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 09:42:49PM -0800, Jeff Carr wrote:
> On 01/09/07 09:16, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Please do _not_ reply to my personal e-mail address, while Cc:ing the
> > list address, as I didn't ask you to do so.
> > Please follow the code of conduct on Debian lists:
> > http://www.debi
On 01/11/07 12:27, Francesco Poli wrote:
> You seem to be happy with free programs whose documentation is non-free.
Well now, I'm not like that. It's not up to me if the authors choose a
NC clause. It's at least allows PDF's to be sent and people that can't
afford to purchase a physical book can
On 01/09/07 09:16, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Please do _not_ reply to my personal e-mail address, while Cc:ing the
> list address, as I didn't ask you to do so.
> Please follow the code of conduct on Debian lists:
> http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
> Thanks.
I got annoyed as to wh
On 01/12/07 09:31, Francesco Poli wrote:
> The issue here is not whether the NC license element is /useful/.
That makes a lot of sense now. I think maybe that's why we haven't
been seeing eye to eye in this thread. Whether or not the NC license
element is useful was the exact issue I was trying t
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:43:27 -0800 Jeff Carr wrote:
> But, it seems relevant that the CC license is not being designed
> exclusively for software.
CC license*s* (there are many of them, unfortunately: please avoid
collapsing them all into one senseless unity...) are not designed for
*programs*.
B
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:35:47 -0800 Jeff Carr wrote:
> On 01/11/07 06:42, Terry Hancock wrote:
[...]
> > I agree with you that NC and ND content violates DFSG.
>
> Sorry, I had difficulty making my position clear.
>
> Even though the existence of an optional clause (like NC) appears to
> contradi
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 09:08:48AM -0600, Terry Hancock wrote:
> > As I already said, forbidding commercial use is definitely *against* the
> > spirit of free software and the intent of the DFSG.
> Yes it is. But AFAIK, no one is debating the DFSG-freeness of CC NC or
> ND licenses.
Hardly. You
On 01/10/07 10:24, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Indeed, something vaguely similar to free software, but exclusively
> non-commercial, would *not* have been as successful as actual free
> software; that non-commercial-only kind of software really exists and is
> sometimes referred to as "semi-free softw
On 01/11/07 06:42, Terry Hancock wrote:
>> | That's good, I'm not convinced that CC in any form isn't DFSG. :)
> I agree with you that NC and ND content violates DFSG.
Sorry, I had difficulty making my position clear.
Even though the existence of an optional clause (like NC) appears to
contradi
stated that he "intended for the entire contents
of that CD to be under the rights stated in the DFSG - be they software,
documentation, or data. [...] I have very consciously maintained my own
book series as Open Source rather than Creative Commons."
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:44:50 -0800 Jeff Carr wrote:
> On 01/09/07 16:34, Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> > Drafting and actively promoting licenses that forbid commercial use
> > and/or modifications harms the free software movement, rather than
> > helping it.
>
> That hasn't always worked out to be
1 - 100 of 375 matches
Mail list logo
