Your message dated Thu, 5 Jul 2007 09:41:05 +0200 (CEST)
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#431794: whichwayisup: CC-v3.0 licenses do not meet the DFSG
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: whichwayisup
Version: 0.7.0-1
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.1
Hi!
The debian/copyright file[1] of this package states, in part:
| All game content, sounds and graphics are licensed
| under Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution license
| ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ )
As I replied[2] to you on debian-legal and debian-devel, I don't think
that CC-v3.0 licenses meet the DFSG.
In that message I referred you to some past threads, among which
you can find a detailed analysis[3] of CC-by-sa-v3.0: most of the
issues found in CC-by-sa-v3.0 also apply to CC-by-v3.0.
Please, try and persuade upstream to relicense (or dual-license) the
"game content" under the same license as the "game code", that is
to say the GNU GPL v2.
Or under some other clearly DFSG-free license, such as the Expat/MIT
license[4].
[1]
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/w/whichwayisup/whichwayisup_0.7.0-1/whichwayisup.copyright
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/05/msg00195.html
[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00105.html
[4] http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Francesco,
In my opinion CC-by and CC-by-sa meet the requirements to be DFSG-free. I know
it is a controversial issue, so I won't enter into that fight myself (IANAL).
I'm pretty sure the license text can be improved, as can also most of other
licenses be, but that doesn't make it not DFSG, I think the license grants all
the rights needed to be considered free.
Thanks a lot for your concern anyway, maybe you should try to ask ftpmasters
about it, as they're in fact the authoritative entity that really decide on
which licenses are valid or not in last instance. The package has gone
recently through the NEW queue and was approved, and it doesn't seem that it
just had slip through, as it was clearly announced in the ITP, in the
debian/copyright file, the debian-legal mailing list and to the ftpmasters in
advance, as well as in planet.
____________________________________________________________________________________
¡Descubre una nueva forma de obtener respuestas a tus preguntas!
Entra en Yahoo! Respuestas.
http://es.answers.yahoo.com/info/welcome
--- End Message ---
