Ryo ONODERA <ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost> writes:
> Hi,
>
> From: Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost>, Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 09:58:33
> -0400
>
>>
>> Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 05:45:16AM +0900, Ryo ONODERA wrote:
>>>> I want to import font packages to pkgsrc.
>>>> See wip/konatu-ttf and wip/ricty-ttf.
>>>>
>>>> These fonts are released under licenses that is not registered
>>>> in pkgsrc/licenses directory.
>>>>
>>>> konatu-ttf is released under Creative Commons
>>>> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
>>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ .
>>>> Can I add this CC BY-SA 3.0 unported license to pkgsrc/licenses?
>>>> CC has many variation, CC {BY|BY-ND|BY-SA|BY-NC|BY-NC-ND|BY-NA-SA}
>>>> {1.0|2.0|2.5|3.0} {Unported|Generic|English|Japanese|...} and so on.
>>>
>>> I don't see a better way than adding them (when we need them).
>>>
>>> For this one, it doesn't seem worse than GPL, so we can probably add
>>> it to the default allowed licenses. Greg?
>>
>> It's certainly fine to add CC licenses as needed.
>>
>> We have been careful not to get into the business of deciding if
>> licenses are free enough, and have a "can be in default if approved by
>> OSI or FSF".
>>
>> I would be ok with adding some CC licenses to the default acceptable
>> list.
>>
>> BY and SA seem obviously ok.
>> NC is fairly obviously not ok
>> ND is not obvious; it seems not ok.
>
> According to The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) explanation page
> http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses , some version of CC license is
> incompatible with DFSG.
> But CC-BY-SA v3.0 is compatible with DFSG.
> # Sadly I cannot completely understand the problem yet.
>
> I think that DFSG has more strict policy than OSI, and CC-BY-SA v3.0 is
> compatible with GNU FDL v1.3.
> I think that CC-BY-SA v3.0 is acceptable for pkgsrc's developers and users.
>
> I will add CC-BY-SA v3.0 as pkgsrc/licenses/cc-by-sa-v3.0.
> And I believe that CC-BY-SA v3.0 can be added the default acceptable list.
> If there will be no objection, I want to add it to the default list.
That sounds ok to me. DFSG compliance is something I'm inclined to
treat as evidence of open/free enough to be in the default list.
(I would guess that DFSG says that ND and NC aren't ok, and the other
terms are.)
Attachment:
pgpeDYew3Vwok.pgp
Description: PGP signature