https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses have no conclusion about CC-BY 3.0/4.0
licenses.
My system (up to date testing) already have CC-BY packages:
$ cat /usr/share/doc/*/copyright | command grep -i ^license:.*CC | sort |
uniq -c
...
10 License: CC-BY
33 License: CC-BY-3.0
1 License: CC-BY-3.0-US
...
Most notable application that uses CC-BY-3.0 is Deluge BitTorrent client:
Files: deluge/deluge/ui/web/icons/*
Copyright: Furgue icons from http://pinvoke.com/
License: CC-BY-3.0
Search in debian-legal list shown that topic question already was asked
several times. Summary is follow:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/04/msg00027.html
My own personal opinion is that CC-by-sa-v4.0 fails to meet the DFSG.
...
Debian ftp masters seem to disagree with me on CC-v3.0 licenses: they
seem to think that CC-by-sa-v3.0 and CC-by-v3.0 are acceptable for
Debian main.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/04/msg00032.html
Reading them side-by-side: (CC-BY-SA 3.0 and 4.0)
....
So it's no worse than 3.0 and I don't remember what I thought of that :-)
> [2]: https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
I'll update that now.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2013/08/msg00015.html
Secondly, it's true that FTP-masters currently accept works licensed
under CC-by-sa-v3.0 and under CC-by-v3.0 into Debian main.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/01/msg00084.html
AFAICT, the status is as follows:
a) works licensed under the terms of CC-by-v3.0 seem to be currently
accepted by FTP-masters as DFSG-free
b) some people (mostly myself!) disagree with this conclusion and have
explained their position repeatedly on this list and elsewhere, but
(unfortunately!) failed to gain consensus
...
as far as the Debian Project is concerned, is the FTP-masters' one: they
are the real decision-makers.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/01/msg00085.html
Re: is CC BY 3.0 DFSG-free, again
I don't know which previous discussions you refer to, but reviewing the
licenses, the *only* difference I see between CC BY 3.0 and CC BY-SA 3.0 is
that CC BY-SA includes an *additional* restriction relative the CC BY (the
copyleft requirement).
Therefore, if CC BY-SA 3.0 is ok, CC BY 3.0 is also ok.
While I can't find official decision about CC-BY 3.0/4.0 it seems acceptable
with only complain from single person (see above quotations).
Main problem with this issue is NEED TO SEARCH OVER MAIL LIST FOR EACH
interested person. I personally spent 1 hour to figure out state of license
(that it currently is acceptable).
Please may any update https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses page to describe
current practice for CC-BY 3.0/4.0?
I can do it myself but afraid edit wars.
Also I frustrated with docs:
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-short-name
Why include shortening for CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-ND? Or this abbreviation for
packages from 'non-free' section?
Please don't remove my CC, as I am not subscribed to list.
--
Best regards!
