On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 07:27:11AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > You're free to think what you like, but if you're going to make
> > derogatory public remarks, intellectual integrity requires that you
> > provide evidence for your opinions.
>
> Well, that same integrity would require that you provide
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You're free to think what you like, but if you're going to make
> derogatory public remarks, intellectual integrity requires that you
> provide evidence for your opinions.
Well, that same integrity would require that you provide evidence
for your essay's claims
Evan Prodromou dijo [Thu, May 18, 2006 at 04:08:57PM -0400]:
> >However, one thing that Debian is not good at, is providing
> >authoritative statements about licenses. It would be great if you could
> >find a way to change that somehow, but otherwise..
> I think it'd be nice if we could put togethe
On Fri, 2006-19-05 at 07:27 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > [...] http://evan.prodromou.name/CC_Licence_Distinctions
>
> I think some of that is shooting at shadows, some is hyperbole
> and some is contentious:
You're free to think what you like, but if you're go
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 12:34 -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> So: if there's a public statement by Debian or
> debian-legal on a license (like http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary
> is now), would it be misleading for an organization to point to that
> statement? Especially if it was clear that th
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] http://evan.prodromou.name/CC_Licence_Distinctions
I think some of that is shooting at shadows, some is hyperbole
and some is contentious: for example, the "minor techincal
issues" with the CC licences *have* been exploited by licensors
to render works
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
So: if there's a public statement by Debian or debian-legal on a
license (like http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary is now), would
it be misleading for an organization to point to that statement?
Especially if it was clear that the review and approval was not an
endorse
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 12:34:54PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> But I think there's some value for people deciding on a license in
> knowing which licenses clearly prevent a work from being included in
> Debian and which do not.
I would think so, too.
> So: if there's a public statement by Debi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Debian and which do not. So: if there's a public statement by Debian or
>debian-legal on a license (like http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary
debian-legal@ is just a mailing list, so it cannot make any statement.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
The upcoming Creative Commons 3.0 license suite is being tailored
specifically to be compatible with the DFSG and make works licensed
under the Attribution or Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 licenses acceptable
for inclusion in Debian.
One of the major criticisms of Creative Commons has been that they
10 matches
Mail list logo
