Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'm puzzled: how can you say that "Bob had no part in the *derived* > work"?
He took no part in creating the new work from it. > Does Linus Torvalds have no part in linux-image-2.6-*.deb? Debian Linux > kernels are different from official kernel.org ones, but that doesn't > mean that upstream have no part in them! I don't think Linus Torvalds helps create the deb packaging. One can say it contains his work, but "kernel-image-2.6.8-2-386.deb by the Debian kernel team and Linus Torvalds" may not be a strictly accurate credit. I think this may be part of the reason for the particular wording of the old BSD ad clause. > Or am I misreading what you wrote? Maybe. > > CC-Scotland-by-2.5 is an acceptable licence that corrects the DFSG > > failures of CC-generic-by-2.5. > > I have to disagree. OK. > At the very least (even if we conclude that requiring to remove credit > upon request is acceptable), CC-by-2.5/scotland still has the following > other issues: > > * the "any comparable authorship credit" lawyerbomb > * the "sue me in Scotland" problem > > I strongly suggest to adopt clearly DFSG-free licenses that don't have > issues in the first place, rather than choosing a license with more or > less small issues that must be cured. I agree with that advice. Some licensors have drunk CC deeply and will not move, so I suggest that CC-sco is a possible compromise route until a fixed CC 3.x is finally published. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]