Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
>I've been contacted by people at Creative Commons who'd like to have a >telephone conference to go over the draft. I think they're open to our >suggestions, if we can stay focused on particulars. Right now, I think this >is going to have to happen in late Jan. I'm running behind on a lot of >things. I'm not even sure how we'd set up a debian-legal telecon. Oh, this is great news! I think CC-by and CC-by-sa should be "fixable" without changing their goals, so that they will be DFSG-free; the points all seem pretty small. I was disappointed by my inability to get the trademark license statement cleaned up though, since that's an even easier point.
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
>I've been contacted by people at Creative Commons who'd like to have a >telephone conference to go over the draft. I think they're open to our >suggestions, if we can stay focused on particulars. Right now, I think this >is going to have to happen in late Jan. I'm running behind on a lot of >things. I'm not even sure how we'd set up a debian-legal telecon. Oh, this is great news! I think CC-by and CC-by-sa should be "fixable" without changing their goals, so that they will be DFSG-free; the points all seem pretty small. I was disappointed by my inability to get the trademark license statement cleaned up though, since that's an even easier point. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:37:49 -0500 Evan Prodromou wrote: > Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this email; I've been on my > honeymoon in remote places. I hope you enjoyed your honeymoon! :) > > I had a few wording fixes suggested in off-list email by various > -legal members. In addition, there were some very good suggestions for > making the licenses acceptable for Debian. This is very good news! I suppose you're of course referring to those CC licenses that actually *may* be made DFSG-free without undergoing a major change in goals (in other words: CC-by and CC-by-sa)... > > I've been contacted by people at Creative Commons who'd like to have a > telephone conference to go over the draft. I think they're open to our > suggestions, if we can stay focused on particulars. Let's hope for the best! > Right now, I think > this is going to have to happen in late Jan. I'm running behind on a > lot of things. I'm not even sure how we'd set up a debian-legal > telecon. I really wonder if this is possible at all: there may be issues with time-zones, mother-tongues, lack of time to think of appropriate answers... Are we sure that this cannot absolutely be managed through a mailing list, as usual? > > I *will* try to send out a "final" version of the summary this wknd. Great, I'm looking forward to reading it! Thanks again for your time! :) -- Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpHP7RzAutDo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:37:49 -0500 Evan Prodromou wrote: > Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this email; I've been on my > honeymoon in remote places. I hope you enjoyed your honeymoon! :) > > I had a few wording fixes suggested in off-list email by various > -legal members. In addition, there were some very good suggestions for > making the licenses acceptable for Debian. This is very good news! I suppose you're of course referring to those CC licenses that actually *may* be made DFSG-free without undergoing a major change in goals (in other words: CC-by and CC-by-sa)... > > I've been contacted by people at Creative Commons who'd like to have a > telephone conference to go over the draft. I think they're open to our > suggestions, if we can stay focused on particulars. Let's hope for the best! > Right now, I think > this is going to have to happen in late Jan. I'm running behind on a > lot of things. I'm not even sure how we'd set up a debian-legal > telecon. I really wonder if this is possible at all: there may be issues with time-zones, mother-tongues, lack of time to think of appropriate answers... Are we sure that this cannot absolutely be managed through a mailing list, as usual? > > I *will* try to send out a "final" version of the summary this wknd. Great, I'm looking forward to reading it! Thanks again for your time! :) -- Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpdndE7yJMzY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
On Fri, 2004-24-12 at 04:12 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: What is required to move forward on this? Do we *need* to move forward on this? Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this email; I've been on my honeymoon in remote places. I had a few wording fixes suggested in off-list email by various -legal members. In addition, there were some very good suggestions for making the licenses acceptable for Debian. I've been contacted by people at Creative Commons who'd like to have a telephone conference to go over the draft. I think they're open to our suggestions, if we can stay focused on particulars. Right now, I think this is going to have to happen in late Jan. I'm running behind on a lot of things. I'm not even sure how we'd set up a debian-legal telecon. I *will* try to send out a "final" version of the summary this wknd. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
On Fri, 2004-24-12 at 04:12 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: What is required to move forward on this? Do we *need* to move forward on this? Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this email; I've been on my honeymoon in remote places. I had a few wording fixes suggested in off-list email by various -legal members. In addition, there were some very good suggestions for making the licenses acceptable for Debian. I've been contacted by people at Creative Commons who'd like to have a telephone conference to go over the draft. I think they're open to our suggestions, if we can stay focused on particulars. Right now, I think this is going to have to happen in late Jan. I'm running behind on a lot of things. I'm not even sure how we'd set up a debian-legal telecon. I *will* try to send out a "final" version of the summary this wknd. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 17:09:38 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Consider adding the following to the summary under "trademark > restrictions": > > Debian-legal has contacted Creative Commons about this issue, since it > seems to be trivial to fix, but has unfortunately received no > response. > > Perhaps also add the following to the summary: > We would really like to work with Creative Commons to make these two > licenses DFSG-free; we hope that Creative Commons will be willing to > work with us. Assuming you are referring to CC-by and CC-by-sa, aren't you? > > After that, I think we should declare it official. And send a copy to > Creative Commons! > > Anyone disagree? I agree entirely. We should really do something about this odd situation. -- Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpbWSllcpzSD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
Consider adding the following to the summary under "trademark restrictions": Debian-legal has contacted Creative Commons about this issue, since it seems to be trivial to fix, but has unfortunately received no response. Perhaps also add the following to the summary: We would really like to work with Creative Commons to make these two licenses DFSG-free; we hope that Creative Commons will be willing to work with us. After that, I think we should declare it official. And send a copy to Creative Commons! Anyone disagree?
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 04:12:32 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote: > > The summary is also available here: > > > > http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.txt > > http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html > > I have seen no indication that this summary has become final, despite > the fact that it only prompted one objection (from Sean Kellogg[1], a > virtual paroxysm of dismay in which he apparently didn't even read the > entire of text of the summary). I haven't seen either. > > What is required to move forward on this? I think that a message from Evan stating that the summary is to be considered final should suffice... > Do we *need* to move forward on this? I really think that we *need* to clarify our position about current Creative Commons licenses! Those licenses are non-free, even the most permissive ones. And they are getting more and more widespread: their issues are going unnoticed by the majority of people, not to mention those who like their problems (claiming that they are good features, rather than flaws). We should recommend against adopting those licenses, and, in the meanwhile, try and persuade CC to fix them (at least the ones that could become DFSG-compliant without changing their very nature: of course you cannot fix CC-by-nc-nd-2.0 and make it free, unless you thoroughly drop it...). -- Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpm3TdXkYDpL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:19:30PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > Below is a second version of the summary of the Creative Commons 2.0 > licenses. [...] On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:17:12PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: [...] > The summary is also available here: > > http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.txt > http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html I have seen no indication that this summary has become final, despite the fact that it only prompted one objection (from Sean Kellogg[1], a virtual paroxysm of dismay in which he apparently didn't even read the entire of text of the summary). What is required to move forward on this? Do we *need* to move forward on this? [1] Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- G. Branden Robinson| I'm a firm believer in not drawing Debian GNU/Linux | trend lines before you have data [EMAIL PROTECTED] | points. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Tim Ottinger signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
Evan Prodromou wrote: Below is a second version of the summary of the Creative Commons 2.0 licenses. The summary is also available here: http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.txt http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html ~ESP
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:21:17AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > But in evaluating licenses, we have to assume that the Licensor is not > good, generous, or rational. If we can convince ourselves that the license > grants the licensees freedom _even_when_ the Licensor is possessed by > Captain Howdy and starts spewing green goo out of their eye sockets, then > we can be reasonably certain that works released under the license are > really Free. > > Unfortunately, taking this tack makes us look like mean and vituperative > a-holes. The word is "lawyers". They'd do exactly the same thing, for the same reasons, if this were a proper license being negotiated by two parties, rather than one party trying to stuff a vague and open-ended document down the collective throat of the world. > So, if Programmer Joe really wrote a program and made the documentation > available under the by 2.0, and I created a modified version and wrote in > the modified documentation: > > Programmer Joe's version of this algorithm ran in O(N^2) time, but > our > new version runs in O(NlogN) time. > > ...then, as the license is written now, Joe could request that I remove his > name from this sentence. > > Now, is this earthshatteringly bad? Not really. We could obviously work > around it, and program documentation that leaves out reference to the > original version and its authors would probably be more or less usable. > > But opinion here seems to lean to the side that letting Licensors have this > level of editorial control over modified versions of a document makes that > document non-free. Notably it fails the smoke test: this clause prohibits us from including the work in Debian, since we cannot realistically satisfy this requirement. That means it's got to be non-free. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
Sean Kellogg wrote: reading this Draft Summary really set me off. I'm sincerely sorry about that. Let me point out that I was originally extremely hostile to most of the objections posited to the Attribution 1.0 license, most of which are replicated in this draft summary: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2004-June/000913.html But I really think debian-legal needs to rethink some of the absolutest positions it takes and recognize the law is not like software... it will never be perfect... it is an art of compromise. I advise against letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. I think the key problem here is that we're taking the most pessimistic possible view where there are ambiguities in the license text or where the text is vague and unclear. Personally, I believe that the people who work on Creative Commons are good, smart, and dedicated people. I think that folks who use CC licenses are generous and express great good will by sharing their creative fruits with the world. But in evaluating licenses, we have to assume that the Licensor is not good, generous, or rational. If we can convince ourselves that the license grants the licensees freedom _even_when_ the Licensor is possessed by Captain Howdy and starts spewing green goo out of their eye sockets, then we can be reasonably certain that works released under the license are really Free. Unfortunately, taking this tack makes us look like mean and vituperative a-holes. We treat Licensors -- people who are unselfishly sharing their work with the world -- like insane megalomaniacs. It's sucky, but it's a necessary part of the process. A more specific example for Debian would be a programmer who creates documentation licensed under Attribution 2.0. He could require that references in derived versions to design or implementation decisions he made for the program be removed. Are you saying the Attribution License is non-DSFG because the original author can say "take my name out of the derived work"??? Yes. If the Licensor can severely limit the content of modified versions, then the work isn't free, per DFSG 3. If you design a program and then say, this was designed by Programmer Joe, and Programmer Joe, embarressed by the program, says he wants his name taken out, the court will order you to take away the attribution. It is against the law to say someone did something if they did not. Yes. It's illegal to defame someone by saying something untrue about them. However, the clause doesn't say that the licensor can request that you take out untrue references. It says that the licensor can request that you take out _any_ references to them, true or not. So, if Programmer Joe really wrote a program and made the documentation available under the by 2.0, and I created a modified version and wrote in the modified documentation: Programmer Joe's version of this algorithm ran in O(N^2) time, but our new version runs in O(NlogN) time. ...then, as the license is written now, Joe could request that I remove his name from this sentence. Now, is this earthshatteringly bad? Not really. We could obviously work around it, and program documentation that leaves out reference to the original version and its authors would probably be more or less usable. But opinion here seems to lean to the side that letting Licensors have this level of editorial control over modified versions of a document makes that document non-free. "comparable authorship credit" This could mean either "credit for comparable authorship" or "comparable credit for authorship". Its amazing how adding words to a phrase changes its meaning, even more so when changing the order. "Comparable Authorship Credit" looks/sounds/means nothing like "comparable credit for authorship"... come on, the words are switched around and there is a "for" added. That's to make it more clear that there are two different ways to read the phrase. It might be easier to see the difference with parentheses, like in a C program: "(comparable authorship) credit" versus "comparable (authorship credit)". > Read it the way that make sense. Both make syntactic sense. One way is excessively burdensome, and the other is not. We have to be pessimistic here. "These restrictions make excessive demands on both licensor and licensee, and abridge their fair use rights to the Creative Commons trademarks." Cute, but untrue. A trademark is not a copyright... and Fair Use rights are significantly less with a trademark over a copyright. That's debatable. However, the key point is that I can use the name "Creative Commons" right now to talk about the Creative Commons organization without getting their explicit permission. According to the trademark clause, as stated, I could not, if I were a licensor or licensee. Let's be serious for just a moment... do you really believe that Prof. Lessig is goi
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
On 2004-07-22 00:53:18 +0100 Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] Yes, I saw the debate on this
> when it came around, but I was under the impression that someone was working
> with CC to fix the supposed issues... this sounds as if we have given it up.
Summarising the discussions so far should help CC members to get a handle on
current thinking here. I agree that summaries have been a bit closed recently
("this is non-free") and I hope this one isn't (more like "here is what worries
us").
Ben Francis, Evan Prodromou and myslef have been trying to persuade CC to enter
into dialogue, but with one exception (IIRC), it's been much like shouting into
a dark hole so far. Nathanael Nerode got bored waiting in the past, I think. If
you have insight or Magic CC Karma, please help.
> So, here is why I think this summary is total bunk [...]
Now, this sounds as if you have given up.
>> If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You
>> must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any
>> reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. If You
>> create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the
>> extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any reference to such
>> Licensor or the Original Author, as requested.
> [...] Joe, embarressed by the program, says he wants his name taken out,
> the court will order you to take away the attribution. It is against the law
> to say someone did something if they did not. This is just a true under the
> GPL as Attribution 2.0, they just spelled it out in the Attribution 2.0 to
> make litigation easier.
The problem is that, as far as I can tell, Author Joe can insist that
non-attributive mentions of his name are removed from a CC-By work. Have I
misunderstood the wording above?
> Its amazing how adding words to a phrase changes its meaning, even more so
> when changing the order.
Yes, rewording probably shouldn't be included, as much as possible. I do think
the phrase "Comparable Authorship Credit" is ambiguous: are we dealing with one
adjective and a two-word noun, or two adjectives and a noun?
>> Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the
>> Work
>> is licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use the trademark
>> "Creative Commons" or any related trademark or logo of Creative Commons
>> without the prior written consent of Creative Commons.
>
> "These restrictions make excessive demands on both licensor and licensee, and
> abridge their fair use rights to the Creative Commons trademarks." Cute, but
> untrue. A trademark is not a copyright... and Fair Use rights are
> significantly less with a trademark over a copyright.
Please tell me why I would not normally be allowed to call Creative Commons by
that name. If I have not agreed to a licence including the above term, I can,
AFAICT. The above term, if included in the CC-By, forbids it as a condition of
copyright permission.
> Let's be serious for
> just a moment... do you really believe that Prof. Lessig is going to
> encourage restriction of something in violation of established fair use
> rights. Something tells me the thousands of hours spent preparing for
> arguements before the Supreme Court should help us give the benefit of the
> doubt.
No, Prof Lessig got it right. CC do not see the trademark thing as part of the
licence. Sadly, some licensors include it as part of the licence because the CC
page is not clear. This seems a presentational blunder by whoever put it online
for CC, but it does bite and CC refuse to fix it. Might as well alert people
about CC's bug. A CC poster to cc-licenses wrote: "We're definitely not going
to produce a new version for this, which isn't even a part of the license."
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2004-July/000989.html>
> [...] will debain-legal just
> say "this is bad" or does it have recommendations as to how to fix this
> issue.
Isn't that the "Recommendations for Creative Commons" section? Some of them (ND
and NC) are clearly designed not to be fixed, though.
--
MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL;
Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
I've been following this list for almost 3 years now. I've read a lot of things that have upset me, seen poorly formulated arguments, and lots of unnecessary flaming. I've only contributed a few times in the past, but reading this Draft Summary really set me off. Yes, I saw the debate on this when it came around, but I was under the impression that someone was working with CC to fix the supposed issues... this sounds as if we have given it up. So, here is why I think this summary is total bunk (DRM clause asside) and why I believe debain-legal would be laughed out of the conference room if it sat down with the CC lawyers and tried ot aruge these points. You don't need to listen to me, I'm just a lowly 2L interested in software and the free software movement. But I really think debian-legal needs to rethink some of the absolutest positions it takes and recognize the law is not like software... it will never be perfect... it is an art of compromise. I advise against letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. > If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You > must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any > reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. If You > create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the > extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any reference to such > Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. --- snip --- > A more specific example for Debian would be a programmer who creates > documentation licensed under Attribution 2.0. He could require that > references in derived versions to design or implementation decisions he made > for the program be removed. Are you saying the Attribution License is non-DSFG because the original author can say "take my name out of the derived work"??? That's crazy! If you design a program and then say, this was designed by Programmer Joe, and Programmer Joe, embarressed by the program, says he wants his name taken out, the court will order you to take away the attribution. It is against the law to say someone did something if they did not. This is just a true under the GPL as Attribution 2.0, they just spelled it out in the Attribution 2.0 to make litigation easier. -- > "comparable authorship credit" > This could mean either "credit for comparable authorship" or "comparable > credit for authorship". The first interpretation would allow crediting > an author with all other authors who have made similar contributions. > The second would require crediting the author where any author is > credited, even if the level of contribution is not comparable. Its amazing how adding words to a phrase changes its meaning, even more so when changing the order. "Comparable Authorship Credit" looks/sounds/means nothing like "comparable credit for authorship"... come on, the words are switched around and there is a "for" added. The law just doesn't work this way... Contracts rely on subjective agreement between both parties and mutual understanding of terms... otherwise we could find problems with every contract under the sun. There has got to be a level of understanding otherwise all of this breaks down. Read it the way that make sense. --- > Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the Work > is licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use the trademark > "Creative Commons" or any related trademark or logo of Creative Commons > without the prior written consent of Creative Commons. "These restrictions make excessive demands on both licensor and licensee, and abridge their fair use rights to the Creative Commons trademarks." Cute, but untrue. A trademark is not a copyright... and Fair Use rights are significantly less with a trademark over a copyright. Let's be serious for just a moment... do you really believe that Prof. Lessig is going to encourage restriction of something in violation of established fair use rights. Something tells me the thousands of hours spent preparing for arguements before the Supreme Court should help us give the benefit of the doubt. As for whether this applies to the license itself or not sounds OH SO VERY familiar to those who say the GPL is unfree because it prohibits modification. Which is not what the GPL does, it prohibits modification and then claiming its still the GPL, you are free to take bits and parts of the GPL and make your own license, just as you can with this license. DRM is strange and I just don't know enough to comment right now. It seems like an effort to block DRM is a good thing though... will debain-legal just say "this is bad" or does it have recommendations as to how to fix this issue. Thats the end of the attribution license comments. I'm going to reserve further comments to see if anyone cares about these concerns. -- Sean Kellogg 2nd Year -
Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
Below is a second version of the summary of the Creative Commons 2.0 licenses. The main changes are: * I've converted it to reST to make it easy to read in plain text and convert to HTML or what have you. * The summaries by license have been changed to four sections: by 2.0, by-sa 2.0, *-nd-*, and *-nc-*. * Removed statements about licenses being non-free (thanks MJ Ray). * Added note on anti-DRM clause. * Added note on requesting removal of references and credits requirement. * Added intro about Debian and debian-legal (for non-Debian readers). * Added intro about Creative Commons and the license suite. * Added recommendations for authors. * Added recommendations for Creative Commons. * Added links to pertinent documents. * Other minor changes. Comments and criticism welcome. I intend to add in Andrew Suffield's notes about providing parallel DRM'd and non-DRM'd versions of a work, and giving clearer recommendations. ~ESP ---8<--- = debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0 Licenses = :Author: Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :Date: 21 Jul 2004 :Version: 2 :Contact: debian-legal mailing list :Copyright: This document is dedicated by the author to the public domain. This document gives a summary of the opinion of debian-legal members on the six licenses that make up the Creative Commons license suite. About debian-legal == Debian [DEBIAN]_ is an operating system consisting entirely of Free Software. Our definition of "Free Software" is specified in the Debian Free Software Guidelines [DFSG]_. debian-legal [LEGAL]_ is a mailing list whose members provide guidance for the Debian project on, among other things, the acceptability of software and other content for inclusion in the Debian operating system. This includes comparing the license terms of packages against the DFSG to determine if the packages are Free Software. From time to time the debian-legal list provides a review of a well-known software license to express a rough consensus opinion on whether software released solely under the license would be Free Software. Although these summaries are not binding, they do provide some basis for the Debian project to make decisions about individual packages. About Creative Commons == Creative Commons [CC]_ is an organization "devoted to expanding the range of creative work available for others to build upon and share." The organization has created a suite of licenses [LICENSES]_ that content creators can use to specify certain rights that the public can exercise with respect to a particular work. The licenses were released at the end of 2003; there are already over 1 million works released under a Creative Commons license. Although Creative Commons explicitly recommends that their licenses not be used for programs [1]_, works licensed under the Creative Commons licenses are still of interest to the Debian project. Debian includes documentation for programs, and many programs included in Debian use digital data such as images, video, or text, that are not normally considered "software". The Creative Commons licenses are based on a common framework, but have a varied number of license elements that can be included to grant or revoke particular rights. Because of the similarity between the licenses, this document covers all six licenses. License summaries = Attribution 2.0 --- debian-legal contributors think that works licensed solely under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license [BY]_ are not free according to the DFSG and should not be included in Debian. We see the following problems with the license. Removing References ~~~ Section 4a of the license states, in part, If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. Per DFSG 3, any licensor should be allowed to make and distribute modified versions of a work. The above clause allows a licensor to prohibit modified versions that mention them or reference them. For example, an author who made a novel available under an Attribution 2.0 license could give notice to disallow an annotated version that mentions the author by name or simply as "the author". A more specific example for Debian would be a programmer who creates documentation licensed under Attribution 2.0. He could require that references in derived versions to design or implementation decisions he made for the program be removed. In addition, Section 4b of the license requires that the author's name, co
