[Dev] [Voting] Package freedom guidelines draft two

Michał Masłowski mtjm at mtjm.eu
Mon Jan 7 20:34:47 GMT 2013

>> B. == License rules for source and binary packages ==
> I'm not agree with this point. We have good and practicals reasons to
> allow only free software on our repositories, however, any asset under a
> CC No Derivate and/or CC No commercial license clauses doesn't qualifies
> as a "free cultural work", assets aren't software, therefore they aren't
> under the same requirements as software does.

I don't see any disagreement here, or do you agree with a wider
exception for ND nonfunctional data than in A?

I have referred to the "free software or free culture" complexity since
both definitions are useful for different kinds of works and they aren't

> My concern about assets under a CC No commercial license clause combined
> with free software is different because I'm unsure if such material will
> make illegal to sell the asset(s) within the free software binaries as a
> whole. No one on CC answered such concern yet...

It's not completely clear, selling collections is probably forbidden by
Section 4(b) of CC-BY-NC 3.0 Unported.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/attachments/20130107/18bd6173/attachment.sig>

More information about the Dev mailing list