Re: Version 3.0 -- It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too

robrobmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting drew Roberts <zotz100jamz.com>:
> 
>> The FSF sayd the original BSD is Free but not GPL
compatible IIRC. Yes:
>>
>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/in
dex_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
>>
>> If they think BY and BY-SA are non-Free, can you
tell us why?
> 
> The FSF?
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLi
censes
> 
> "There is literally no specific freedom that all
Creative Commons licenses
> grant. Therefore, to say that a work "uses a
Creative Commons license" is to
> leave all important questions about the work's
licensing unanswered. When you
> see such a statement, please suggest making it clearer.
And if someone 
> proposes
> to "use a Creative Commons license" for a
certain work, it is vital to ask
> immediately "Which one?""

I think that now the CC buttons state which license allows
what, this
requirement is fulfilled. Or one could say that FSF
currently publishes one
license that allows binary-only distribution of programs, so
when someone
proposes to use a "GPL license" for a certain
work, it is vital to ask
immediately "Which one?. The lesser one?". Time to
move on?

People usually do, in fact. They pick GPL or LGPL and state
it; we should
make sure that it is easier for users of CC to state clearly
which flavour
they are using than to hide it.

-- javier
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses