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?""

This is a complaint about the branding confusion issue. It
doesn't say
it's non-free. In fact, right above the text you quote it
says:

"""
This is a copyleft free license meant for artistic works
and
entertainment works. Please don't use it for software or
documentation,
since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU
FDL.
"""

So the FSF must be "incredible" too. 

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancockAnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpac
eworks.com

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