Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Mar 2007 22:32 UTC, submitted by twenex
KDE The KDE 4 release team started a discussion about a possible release schedule for KDE 4. Of course nothing is set yet but the topic is now hot and some interesting problems and point of views come up. In other but related news Oxygen hit the mirrors, or better, kdelibs.
Thread beginning with comment 219546
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

that'd be a link to debian's take on the 2.0 CC licenses. we're using the 3.0 licenses. ianal, but it seems to my innocent and legally naive eyes that the issues raised on that page have, albeit with the usual legal obfuscation ;) , been addressed or at least attempted to be addressed.

when the debian project has a stand on the CC 3.0 license, i'll be certain to read it.

i think they'd be doing a great disfavour to continue to split these hairs, but it's their business really. iceweasel forever, huzzah to the future of debian and what not.

Reply Parent Score: 5

ubit Member since:

you're right Aaron, sorry about that. There seems to be more recent (March 5/07?) informal analysis of it here:

Reply Parent Score: 3

smitty Member since:

>When You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work, You may not impose any
>effective technological
>measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work
>from You to exercise the rights
>granted to that recipient under the terms of the License.

This is the old DRM problem. It does not look to be resolved with this
particular wording.

Hmm, I'm not sure why Debian doesn't like that. Are they going to have similar problems with the anti-DRM stuff in GPLv3?

Also, what are the advantages of this license versus something like GPL? I know it's often used for artwork, but not why.

Edited 2007-03-08 07:41

Reply Parent Score: 2

aseigo Member since:


yes, they complain about DRM without considering that not having that protection endangers the freedom we are trying to protect. this is something that even the gpl itself did not consider, ergo the viability of the microsoft-novell agreement. regardless of how you feel about that, it doesn't make this a non-free license.

they then go on to be concerned about the removal of attribution as a possible sticking issue. i believe that is specifically why the phrase "to the extent reasonably practicle" is there as well as the references to 4(a) and 4(c) are made.

yeah, this is tricky. that's why people like lessig are involved =)

now, all that said, debian is free to do as they wish. and i wish them all the best in the world in doing so.

Reply Parent Score: 4