Hi,
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:55:40AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Nils Dagsson Moskopp n...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net writes:
Developers often point to the music they used for the reason behind
that and claim that the scope of the Creative Commons ShareAlike
licensing requires that code must
of the Creative Commons ShareAlike
licensing requires that code must also be licensed CC BY-NC-SA, thus
definitely non-free according to DFSG and FSF criteria.
This would be a question of whether one (part of the) work constitutes a
“derived work” of the prior one. If a jurisdiction would rule
.
To me, one of the most common problems with visual novel licensing seems
to be that many authors choose a Creative Commons license which features
Attribution, ShareAlike (copyleft), and NonCommercial (no commercial use
allowed), in short CC BY-NC-SA. Developers often point to the music they
used
It would likely cost a few thousands of dollars to purchase a
better license for the music, so that's the reason for the
license.
I sincerely doubt that a game must necessarily be considered an
adaption of its background music – since usually, game and music
are very loosely coupled and
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Paul Wise wrote:
Mike Linksvayer suggests upgrading to CC0 instead:
This is not a good idea: CC0 is up for a rework too, they
just decided to get CC 4.0 out of the door first, and the
current CC0 version is *explicitly* discouraged for use
with software. (Also, Public
Le Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:03:31PM +0100, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Paul Wise wrote:
Mike Linksvayer suggests upgrading to CC0 instead:
This is not a good idea: CC0 is up for a rework too, they
just decided to get CC 4.0 out of the door first, and the
current CC0
On 28.11.2013 13:27, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:03:31PM +0100, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Paul Wise wrote:
Mike Linksvayer suggests upgrading to CC0 instead:
This is not a good idea: CC0 is up for a rework too, they
just decided to get CC 4.0 out of
kuno at frob.nl writes:
On 28.11.2013 13:27, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:03:31PM +0100, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Paul Wise wrote:
Mike Linksvayer suggests upgrading to CC0 instead:
This is not a good idea: CC0 is up for a rework too, they
just
On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 10:01 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768
Mike Linksvayer suggests upgrading to CC0 instead:
http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2013/11/25/upgrade-to-0/
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
http://blog.thesilentnumber.me/2012/08/stop-inclusion-of-proprietary-licenses.html
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
quote name=Paul Wise date=2012-04-11 time=11:32:42 +0800
I hope some of these thoughts spill over into the games development
community.
Very timely of you to say that :)
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32322
Announcing the Liberated Pixel Cup: an epic contest for gaming freedom
CC
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Greg Grossmeier wrote:
quote name=Paul Wise date=2012-04-11 time=11:32:42 +0800
I hope some of these thoughts spill over into the games development
community.
Very timely of you to say that :)
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32322
Announcing the
quote name=Paul Wise date=2012-04-10 time=11:27:52 +0800
AFAICT Creative Commons folks never think about this aspect of Free
Culture.
Donning my CC hat now (I work for CC):
CC definitely thinks about the issue whenever it is relevant. However,
changing the main 6 (well, 4 if you throw out the 2
quote name=Greg Grossmeier date=2012-04-10 time=11:40:58 -0700
quote name=Paul Wise date=2012-04-10 time=11:27:52 +0800
AFAICT Creative Commons folks never think about this aspect of Free
Culture.
Donning my CC hat now (I work for CC):
CC definitely thinks about the issue whenever
Thanks for the replies. It is good to hear CC folks are thinking about
source stuff, the discussions you pointed at were quite interesting. I
hope some of these thoughts spill over into the games development
community.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 12:58:11 -0500 Gunnar Wolf wrote:
[...]
I know Francesco Poli, quite active in this list, has been following
up lately much closer than me.
Yes, I am currently involved in the public comment of the CC-v4.0draft1
(hi, Gunnar!).
I have identified other Debian people
in the
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
Sadly Creative Commons are still peddling non-free licenses :(
https://lwn.net/Articles/490202/
Why do you find this sad? There are licenses needed for things other
than free software.
--
Chris
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
quote name=Christofer C. Bell date=2012-04-09 time=15:02:37 -0500
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
Sadly Creative Commons are still peddling non-free licenses :(
https://lwn.net/Articles/490202/
Why do you find this sad? There are licenses needed
to that I'm aware of is the NIN
songs (that were licensed non-freely); NIN released the source data
and mixing info. AFAICT Creative Commons folks never think about this
aspect of Free Culture.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ
Sadly Creative Commons are still peddling non-free licenses :(
https://lwn.net/Articles/490202/
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:26:09 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
So, to turn this into something even more useful: is there anyone
willing to keep an eye on the CC process on behalf of Debian?
The ideal candidate should be a license geek in agreement with the
current position of the Debian
Stefano Zacchiroli dijo [Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:26:09AM +0100]:
I hope Debian folks (especially ftpmasters) will be willing to
subscribe to the cc-licenses list and help ensure that the CC 4.0
licenses will be suitable for Debian.
(...)
So, to turn this into something even more useful: is
Hi all,
This mail is to advise you that the process for creating the 4.0
versions of the Creative Commons licenses has started:
https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/30676
https://lwn.net/Articles/471803/
I think we need to ensure that the version 4.0 licenses do not regress
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 07:12:19AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
I think we need to ensure that the version 4.0 licenses do not regress
in their acceptability for Debian.
Agreed.
I hope Debian folks (especially ftpmasters) will be willing to
subscribe to the cc-licenses list and help ensure that
?!?
I am personally under the impression that Creative Commons has been a
license proliferation festival since the beginning of the their
activity... :-(
[1] http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl
[2] http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-lgpl
[3] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BSD
with the Expat
license; this is not a distinguishing feature of the Creative Commons
licenses.
One could, except for the fact that the Expact License terms assume that the
license is included as part of the work itself, alongside the copyright
notice. It is somehat difficult to meat the condition
Ben Finney wrote
Yes. If anything, the length of verbiage that Creative Commons feels
necessary to effectively place a work in the public domain, under the
current copyright regime, only supports the idea that it's
significantly *more* complicated than working with copyright and using
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Joe Smith unknown_kev_...@hotmail.com wrote:
Thus the CC0 licence takes only one line to apply to a work.
#authornamemakes this work avilable under CC0
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)
The CC folks prefer that you use this actually:
To
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:39:19 +0900 Paul Wise wrote:
[...]
Since it is meant as a more universal public domain dedication, I'd
expect it would meet the DFSG.
I read it through and I failed to spot any freeness issue.
Hence, I think a work associated with the CC0 declaration/license
complies
simpler choice and
achieves a very similar result, without most of the complications.
Yes. If anything, the length of verbiage that Creative Commons feels
necessary to effectively place a work in the public domain, under the
current copyright regime, only supports the idea that it's
significantly
Hello d-legal,
with the recent release of CC0 by Creative Commons, I wonder what your
opinions on it are about using this for software that might be included in
Debian?
Regards,
Max
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Maximilian Gaß wrote:
with the recent release of CC0 by Creative Commons, I wonder what your
opinions on it are about using this for software that might be included in
Debian?
Since it is meant as a more universal public domain dedication, I'd
expect it would
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
Here is a copy/paste of the the legal code for CC0 1.0 Universal for
-legal regulars to dissect:
I should also point out the human-readable summary:
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
CC0 1.0 Universal
No
The following is a bit of a late reply, but I is probably still worth
making.
Matthijs Kooijman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In short, I think it is better to avoid the matter alltogether and not try
to
make section 3 apply to this work. This automatically happens
(Please CC me on replies)
Hi Ben,
As some background, the works we are licensing are graphics for a
game. These are mostly created through 3D modeling. For this, mostly
Blender files are rendered into the pcx bitmap format. These pcx
files are sometimes manually post processed, and
Hi all,
There's no real reason why the GPL itself would not be suitable. In
fact, in most cases, it's what you actually want, because having the
prefered form of modification for the images and audio avaiable is the
best thing to help make minor changes and bug fixes to artwork and/or
audio.
Matthijs Kooijman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We've had a better look at the GPL and it does seem quite suitable.
Thanks for progressing with this, and reporting your further thoughts
and questions.
As some background, the works we are licensing are graphics for a
game. These are mostly
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
Matthijs Kooijman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Re-license the entire work under the GPLv2, and clarify your grant
of license to use the simple definition of terms from the GPLv3.
This would have a license grant something like:
This work is free
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Defining terms in the license grant] is a bad idea. If GPLv2 does
not actually mean this, you are adding an additional restriction. If
it does, you're just wasting time. Neither option is terribly
useful.
I see it differently. What the GPLv2 means is
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Defining terms in the license grant] is a bad idea.
I should note that this is not just defining terms in the license
grant; it's either a null operation, or it adds a class things to
object code which was not
2008/9/19 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, I am upset this is the second time someone has made unfounded and
unresearched claims on this list regarding extra clauses being applied to
our software, and a good example why I'd prefer if Debian not have anything
to do with our project.
That's
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:52:08 -0400 Arc Riley wrote:
Did you check the source code to see if any additional clauses were added to
the AGPLv3 before making this claim? Apparently not, and neither did
Francesco
Poli a little over a year ago when he made similar accusations based on text
on
Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm pretty sure at Linux.conf.au this year in the games miniconf,
someone from CC Australia was recomending the use of CC (-SA i think)
for game data, and said it didnt conflict with the
(Please note I'm only subscribed to debian-devel-games)
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 15:43 -0400, Arc Riley wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This might be really relevant for us, the Games Team, as there
seem to
be quite a lot of
2008/9/18 Jamie Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Multiple tar.gz files could probably fix that - or requiring users to
checkout from the revision control system. That may very well mean the
data will be in non-free and the game in contrib, but that is not unlike
GFDL licensed documentation that isn't
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Jamie Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Multiple tar.gz files could probably fix that - or requiring users to
checkout from the revision control system.
GPLv3 section 5c (note bold text):
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
for the attribution one, as long as the clause
requiring attribution is carefully drafted so that it meets the DFSG
(I personally think Creative Commons attribution clause fails to
meet the DFSG, but that's another story...)
[2] http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=308829#p308829
My usual
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 16:15 +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
2008/9/18 Jamie Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Multiple tar.gz files could probably fix that - or requiring users to
checkout from the revision control system. That may very well mean the
data will be in non-free and the game in contrib, but
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 10:34 -0400, Arc Riley wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Jamie Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Multiple tar.gz files could probably fix that - or requiring
users to
checkout from the revision control system.
GPLv3 section 5c
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote:
Clearly you cannot escape the terms of the GPL by splitting the work into
different packages, otherwise everyone would do this.
There are many cases where you can, actually.
game+working sample data, with more complex data distributed
separately is a
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:34:03AM -0400, Arc Riley wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Jamie Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Multiple tar.gz files could probably fix that - or requiring users to
checkout from the revision control system.
GPLv3 section 5c (note bold text):
c) You
IANAL and am not presenting a legal opinion. What I am speaking about here
is based on numerous conversations I've had with lawyers in the IP (sic)
field.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Jamie Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
How do you define an entire work?
I've been told repeatedly that one
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote:
There is absolutely no issue licensing game data under the (L/A)GPL. In
fact, this is required for at least the GPLv3 in that the license applies to
the whole of the work, and all it's parts, regardless of how they are
packaged. Thus if the game code or
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In order to release it under the GPL (at least if you want people to be
able to distribute it), you have to release the uncompressed audio or video
Says who? You have to distribute the it in a form that's ready for
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 14:35 -0400, Arc Riley wrote:
IANAL and am not presenting a legal opinion. What I am speaking about
here is based on numerous conversations I've had with lawyers in the
IP (sic) field.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Jamie Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How
Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In order to release it under the GPL (at least if you want people
to be able to distribute it), you have to release the uncompressed
audio or video
Says who? You have to
Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IANAL and am not presenting a legal opinion. What I am speaking
about here is based on numerous conversations I've had with lawyers
in the IP (sic) field.
Such a field doesn't really exist. I think the only relevant field
for this discussion is copyright
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Ben Finney
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IANAL and am not presenting a legal opinion. What I am speaking
about here is based on numerous conversations I've had with lawyers
in the IP (sic) field.
Such a
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Jamie Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
That is your belief. I could release content (textures and level
geometry) that I have been creating for my game right now, and it could
be used by at least 6 other game engines, and a variety of utility
programs.
They
Hi all,
on the risk of touching a delicate subject, I'm looking for a license to put
on some artistic content. In particular, the OpenTTD [1] game currently
requires the use of non-free content to work. There is a project started to
create free content, so the game as a whole can be made
Matthijs Kooijman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
on the risk of touching a delicate subject, I'm looking for a license to put
on some artistic content. In particular, the OpenTTD [1] game currently
requires the use of non-free content to work. There is a project started to
create free
Hi Walter,
Dual license your work under GPL and whatever you like. Then there
are no DFSG-freedom issues, and you can fix whatever problems you
think exist in the GPL. It also simplifies things if we can treat the
whole game+data as being under a single license.
This seems to say that you
There is absolutely no issue licensing game data under the (L/A)GPL. In
fact, this is required for at least the GPLv3 in that the license applies to
the whole of the work, and all it's parts, regardless of how they are
packaged. Thus if the game code or any dependencies (ie, the engine) are
2008/9/17 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There is absolutely no issue licensing game data under the (L/A)GPL. In
fact, this is required for at least the GPLv3 in that the license applies to
the whole of the work, and all it's parts, regardless of how they are
packaged. Thus if the game code
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This might be really relevant for us, the Games Team, as there seem to
be quite a lot of games that have a different license for the engine
and the game data, and the combination of GPL and CC-by-sa seems to be
getting more
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 21:21 +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
2008/9/17 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There is absolutely no issue licensing game data under the (L/A)GPL. In
fact, this is required for at least the GPLv3 in that the license applies to
the whole of the work, and all it's parts,
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm pretty sure at Linux.conf.au this year in the games miniconf,
someone from CC Australia was recomending the use of CC (-SA i think)
for game data, and said it didnt conflict with the GPL.
I too have heard people from
On May 31, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, I prefer to ask about it first: Does anyone know if CC-by 3.0 is
DFSG-free or not for sure, shall I go ahead and put it in the repositories?
The ftpmasters do.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:47:37 +0200 Miriam Ruiz wrote:
Hi,
I plan to file an ITP and package a cute small game
[...]
All the game code is licensed under the GPL 2.0.
Good.
All the game content,
sounds and graphics are licensed under Creative Commons 3.0
Attribution license ( http
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've seen a previous review from debian legal about the Creative Commons
licences which renders them non free. However, I've just come across a licence
claiming to be Creative Commons Deed Attribution 2.5 which is considerably
shorter and afaict
This one time, at band camp, Matthew Johnson said:
I've seen a previous review from debian legal about the Creative Commons
licences which renders them non free. However, I've just come across a licence
claiming to be Creative Commons Deed Attribution 2.5 which is considerably
shorter
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Stephen Gran wrote:
All data files, except the songs and the font files mentioned above,
are licensed under the following license:
Creative Commons Deed Attribution 2.5
That looks fine.
cool
Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've seen a previous review from debian legal about the Creative Commons
licences which renders them non free. However, I've just come across a
licence
claiming
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:14:27 -0500 Joe Smith wrote:
[...]
Well that is just the non-legalese synopsis of the CC-by-2.5.
It seems so.
It was not intended to be used as an actual licence text.
Definitely *not* intended.
It certainly can be used as a licence text. (Just about anything can
On 01/12/07 19:43, Steve Langasek wrote:
Mail-Followup-To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
BTW, I noticed this line by looking at your emails since replies to
your emails work correctly.
That's not how M-F-T is supposed to work. M-F-T is for specifying an
*alternative* to the list address
On 01/13/07 11:09, Francesco Poli wrote:
My MUA (sarge's Sylpheed) does not support the Mail-Followup-To: field
and hence I should set it manually for each message I send.
Ya, I see now there was some patch floating around to sylpheed around
'02 that maybe fixed that
Le vendredi 12 janvier 2007 à 21:42 -0800, Jeff Carr a écrit :
On 01/09/07 09:16, Francesco Poli wrote:
Please do _not_ reply to my personal e-mail address, while Cc:ing the
list address, as I didn't ask you to do so.
Please follow the code of conduct on Debian lists:
as
well as NC, ND and others. If there's a fault it's that they don't
offer strong differentiation in that support.
Exactly that.
Creative Commons promotes a number of licenses ranging from
close-to-but-not-really-free to blatantly-non-free, without any
differentiation and with no (or very few
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, this is because *your* MUA is broken. The Mail-Followup-To header is
not a standard of any kind, which is why only a handful of (broken) MUAs
implement it. And I mean broken, because it should be named X-Something
until it gets standardized.
It
Jeff Carr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you could argue Bill Gates has been arbitrary and inconsistent
on content ownership issues also (of course in different ways). Don't
you think so?
I don't recall Bill Gates's views on that (they don't get discussed with
me as often as RMS's) but it
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:07:30 -0800 Jeff Carr wrote:
On 01/12/07 09:27, Francesco Poli wrote:
Even though the existence of an optional clause (like NC) appears
to contradict the DFSG in situations we can imagine, that does not
rule out it's use will always contradict the DFSG for every
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:53:50 -0800 Jeff Carr wrote:
On 01/11/07 12:27, Francesco Poli wrote:
You seem to be happy with free programs whose documentation is
non-free.
Well now, I'm not like that. It's not up to me if the authors choose a
NC clause.
Of course, it's not up to you to
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:42:49 -0800 Jeff Carr wrote:
On 01/09/07 09:16, Francesco Poli wrote:
Please do _not_ reply to my personal e-mail address, while Cc:ing
the list address, as I didn't ask you to do so.
Please follow the code of conduct on Debian lists:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 09:08:48AM -0600, Terry Hancock wrote:
As I already said, forbidding commercial use is definitely *against* the
spirit of free software and the intent of the DFSG.
Yes it is. But AFAIK, no one is debating the DFSG-freeness of CC NC or
ND licenses.
Hardly. You
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:35:47 -0800 Jeff Carr wrote:
On 01/11/07 06:42, Terry Hancock wrote:
[...]
I agree with you that NC and ND content violates DFSG.
Sorry, I had difficulty making my position clear.
Even though the existence of an optional clause (like NC) appears to
contradict the
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:43:27 -0800 Jeff Carr wrote:
But, it seems relevant that the CC license is not being designed
exclusively for software.
CC license*s* (there are many of them, unfortunately: please avoid
collapsing them all into one senseless unity...) are not designed for
*programs*.
On 01/12/07 09:31, Francesco Poli wrote:
The issue here is not whether the NC license element is /useful/.
That makes a lot of sense now. I think maybe that's why we haven't
been seeing eye to eye in this thread. Whether or not the NC license
element is useful was the exact issue I was trying
On 01/09/07 09:16, Francesco Poli wrote:
Please do _not_ reply to my personal e-mail address, while Cc:ing the
list address, as I didn't ask you to do so.
Please follow the code of conduct on Debian lists:
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Thanks.
I got annoyed as to why
On 01/11/07 12:27, Francesco Poli wrote:
You seem to be happy with free programs whose documentation is non-free.
Well now, I'm not like that. It's not up to me if the authors choose a
NC clause. It's at least allows PDF's to be sent and people that can't
afford to purchase a physical book can
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 09:42:49PM -0800, Jeff Carr wrote:
On 01/09/07 09:16, Francesco Poli wrote:
Please do _not_ reply to my personal e-mail address, while Cc:ing the
list address, as I didn't ask you to do so.
Please follow the code of conduct on Debian lists:
On 01/12/07 09:27, Francesco Poli wrote:
Even though the existence of an optional clause (like NC) appears to
contradict the DFSG in situations we can imagine, that does not rule
out it's use will always contradict the DFSG for every case.
I think it will: it forbids selling the work (fails
On 01/11/07 16:20, MJ Ray wrote:
Even Richard Stallman says that aesthetic works like books and music
don't have to be free.
Not in the same way and he proposes different levels of freedom for
different types of books, but I think Stallman is arbitrary and
inconsistant about books and
had to forgo
because the author wanted NC terms.
Or even worse, they will publish their works stating This work is
licensed under a Creative Commons License without specifying which one
and without any link to a suitable URL. Great, a Creative Commons
License and we do *not* know which one
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:44:50 -0800 Jeff Carr wrote:
On 01/09/07 16:34, Francesco Poli wrote:
Drafting and actively promoting licenses that forbid commercial use
and/or modifications harms the free software movement, rather than
helping it.
That hasn't always worked out to be the case
intended for the entire contents
of that CD to be under the rights stated in the DFSG - be they software,
documentation, or data. [...] I have very consciously maintained my own
book series as Open Source rather than Creative Commons.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/08/msg00264.html
On 01/11/07 06:42, Terry Hancock wrote:
| That's good, I'm not convinced that CC in any form isn't DFSG. :)
I agree with you that NC and ND content violates DFSG.
Sorry, I had difficulty making my position clear.
Even though the existence of an optional clause (like NC) appears to
contradict
On 01/10/07 10:24, Francesco Poli wrote:
Indeed, something vaguely similar to free software, but exclusively
non-commercial, would *not* have been as successful as actual free
software; that non-commercial-only kind of software really exists and is
sometimes referred to as semi-free
MJ Ray wrote:
Jeff Carr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
It seems to me the CC is written with the same kind of mentality and
intentions that the DFSG was written. [...]
Hardly. CC fans seem to see nothing wrong with discriminating against any
field of endeavour, such as commerce or technical
distribution of free works
through proprietary channels.
Which I think shows that there is in fact a great commonality of intent,
even as there are difference of opinion on implementation. Stallman
overstates the case against Creative Commons, in my personal opinion.
What I do believe Creative Commons
1 - 100 of 332 matches
Mail list logo
