Re: On the debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:20:00 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote: MJ Ray wrote: BSD: http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license MIT/X11: http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html Unfortunately, that is a subtly different X11 license from the one at opensource.org. :-( (X11 stuff is actually under a mix of very similar but not quite identical licenses.) I prefer the one at opensource.org, because it lacks the unnecessary name of a copyright holder shall not be used... to promote... clause. Wait a second... AFAICT, there are two main licenses that are ambiguously also known as MIT license: the Expat license (http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt) and the X11 license (http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html). AFAIK, the latter is the only one known as X11 license, even though, as you correctly point out, various free X11 implementations (XFree86 before version 4.3.99cannotremember, Xorg, ...) are under a mix of different (but similar) licenses, and not only under the X11 license... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp6HK6HBWjxn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: On the debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0
MJ Ray wrote: BSD: http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license MIT/X11: http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html Unfortunately, that is a subtly different X11 license from the one at opensource.org. :-( (X11 stuff is actually under a mix of very similar but not quite identical licenses.) I prefer the one at opensource.org, because it lacks the unnecessary name of a copyright holder shall not be used... to promote... clause. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On the debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0
MJ Ray wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Evan Prodromou) wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:12:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote: About Creative Commons: I feel this needs a paragraph on CC's decision-making, but I do not feel qualified to write it. I have no way of finding that out, and I don't see why it's necessary. If you can dig up some information, I'll include it. Sadly, Creative Commons (as an organisation) seems to lack the transparency of Software in the Public Interest or Free Software Foundation Europe. I don't know whether you already know some of the details from the contact so far. For example, are we dealing with their board of directors or their technical advisory board or others? How do they make decisions? There is a cc license discussion list, and it is open. The decision process may use the discussions, at least in it there is talk about. There is also one in portuguese I know of, also open. For the main cc license discussion list, please read Send cc-licenses mailing list submissions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Prof. Pedro Antonio Dourado de Rezende /\ Ciencia da Computacao (61)3072702-212 / \ Universidade de Brasilia, DF, Brasil /\ ?http://www.cic.unb.br/docentes/pedro/sd.htm -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On the debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0
Pedro A.D.Rezende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a cc license discussion list, and it is open. The decision process may use the discussions, at least in it there is talk about. I just reviewed a previous intervention of mine on that mailing list. There were references to raising something internally but left me none the wiser about what goes on inside the black box that calls itself Creative Commons. Is there some information there? Please don't cc me on posts to this list. -- 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]
On the debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0
This is a comment on version 4 of http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html About debian-legal: I feel that this would benefit from making it clear who can make binding decisions on licensing. I suggest: The decision-makers are the ftpmasters (who are responsible for archive maintenance) and the package maintainers (who are responsible for uploading to debian). Both of these are thought to listen to advice from debian-legal and debian policy is for maintainers to send copyright queries to debian-legal. It is possible to reverse decisions and issue position statements through a vote of all developers or the technical committee (see the constitution), but both of those actions are rare. About Creative Commons: I feel this needs a paragraph on CC's decision-making, but I do not feel qualified to write it. License summaries: Removing References - I think this also may conflict with No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavour if exercised. Any Other Comparable Authorship Credit - I consider this unclear rather than outright breaking guidelines, so I suggest making the last paragraph would be not is. Anti-DRM clause - I think this is fine. Trademark Restrictions - In the final paragraph, this should appeal to Web Content Accessibility Guideline 2 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#gl-color to support it. Maybe this section should also note that there have been uses of the licence which included this section, so it is definitely ambiguous. I agree with the other licence type summaries. Recommendations for Authors: Recommendations for Creative Commons: I am happy with these recommendations, but realise that they are subject to negotiation. References: These seem to be truncated. I would also find non-opensource.org editions of the BSD and MIT licences. Add WCAG, the debian policy manual and constitution. I apologise for the late arrival of this comment. -- 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]
Re: On the debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0
Correction/clarification, after noticing a context problem: Anti-DRM clause - I think this is fine. I mean: I think that section of the summary is fine. [...] I would also find non-opensource.org editions of the BSD and MIT licences. s/find/prefer/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On the debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:47:36PM +, MJ Ray wrote: [...] I would also find non-opensource.org editions of the BSD and MIT licences. s/find/prefer/ One thing we can do is that I can amass as many links as I can to the BSD and MIT licenses, and then hold them up to you one at a time like an optometrist. How's this? No, that's still no good. This one? Mmmm... no. How about this? Still no. This? Almost, but not quite. Or, y'know, you could just go out and find the URL that works for you, and send it to me. Personally, I prefer option 2. ~Evan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On the debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:12:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote: About Creative Commons: I feel this needs a paragraph on CC's decision-making, but I do not feel qualified to write it. I have no way of finding that out, and I don't see why it's necessary. If you can dig up some information, I'll include it. Removing References - I think this also may conflict with No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavour if exercised. How so? Can you make that clearer? Is it worth including in the summary? Any Other Comparable Authorship Credit - I consider this unclear rather than outright breaking guidelines, so I suggest making the last paragraph would be not is. Fair enough. How about external clarification could make this free, but could also make it not free, and fixing the text is the best solution? (Except more careful wording, esp. w/r/t free.) I need to think up something similar for the trademark requirements issue. Trademark Restrictions - In the final paragraph, this should appeal to Web Content Accessibility Guideline 2 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#gl-color to support it. Maybe this section should also note that there have been uses of the licence which included this section, so it is definitely ambiguous. I think it says that already. Some instances of the license found in the wild include the trademark restrictions. New wording welcome. Add WCAG, the debian policy manual and constitution. I apologise for the late arrival of this comment. No sweat. It's probably worth noting at this point that Creative Commons did their major review of version 3, and although they're aware of version 4, they probably are going to respond to 3. I'm going to do a version 5 after we hear their response. According to Dr. Lessig, they're meeting to go over their response today. Thanks for your response. ~Evan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On the debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Evan Prodromou) wrote: Or, y'know, you could just go out and find the URL that works for you, and send it to me. Sarcasm isn't good for you. BSD: http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license MIT/X11: http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On the debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Evan Prodromou) wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:12:44PM +, MJ Ray wrote: About Creative Commons: I feel this needs a paragraph on CC's decision-making, but I do not feel qualified to write it. I have no way of finding that out, and I don't see why it's necessary. If you can dig up some information, I'll include it. Sadly, Creative Commons (as an organisation) seems to lack the transparency of Software in the Public Interest or Free Software Foundation Europe. I don't know whether you already know some of the details from the contact so far. For example, are we dealing with their board of directors or their technical advisory board or others? How do they make decisions? I think this is necessary to brief people about who is talking to who and why. Removing References - I think this also may conflict with No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavour if exercised. How so? Can you make that clearer? Is it worth including in the summary? It would prevent a CC-licensed work being included in a biography, in the absence of other permission. I hope that makes it clearer. I don't know whether this example is worthy of inclusion. [...] -- 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]
