On May 04, 2008 11:02 AM PDT, Jason Chu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Thayer Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On May 04, 2008 12:17 AM PDT, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Thayer Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > Excuse the naive question, but while putting together some PKGBUILDs > > for > > > > the Arch artwork stuff, I couldn't find any reference to the Creative > > > > Commons licenses in /usr/share/licenses. Am I missing something or > > > > do we need to add this to our collection? > > > > > > > > The Arch Linux logo (and other related artwork) is released under CC > > > > license so I want to make sure I flag these properly. > > > > > > I don't believe it is. I can add it to the package if we have a need > > > for it though. If you could track me down a plain-text copy of it or > > > point me to a link, that would be great. > > > > > > -Dan > > > > I'll do that...I did discover that a couple of packages (e.g. > > tango-icon-theme) do use an individual copy of the CC license. > > > > The thing is, there are several versions of this license and each with > > their own version numbers (2.0, 2.5, etc.) so I can see it being a > > potential headache. At the same time it's use is becoming mainstream > > so it might be worthwhile. > > > > Anyone else have any thoughts on this? > > I think the different versions are fairly compatible (maybe I'm > wrong), but you would have to support all the variations for sure: > cc-by, cc-by-nc, cc-by-nd, cc-by-nc-nd, cc-by-sa, cc-by-nc-sa, > cc-sampling+, cc-nc-sampling+, etc. > > I suppose we could just add them as we go. How many have you seen in > the wild as of yet? > > Jason
With respect to the packages I have installed on my machine, the only CC license appears to be the tango-icon-theme, but I have no idea about other theme-oriented pkgs. As far as in the wild at large, it's one of the most common (if not the most common) licenses for community-released media, artwork, etc. Like you said, maybe we should add it as needed--the Arch stuff is all attribution-noncommercial-sharealike so that's a good place to start.
