2009/9/16 Caroline Ford <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:caroline.ford.work@googlemail.com">caroline.ford.work@googlemail.com</a>></span><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I'll check to see if any are 2.0+<div class="im"><br>
<br>
Sent from a mobile device.<br>
<br></div><div><div></div><div class="h5">
On 16 Sep 2009, at 10:38, Holger Levsen <<a href="mailto:holger@layer-acht.org" target="_blank">holger@layer-acht.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div></div><div class="h5">
Hi,<br>
<br>
On Donnerstag, 10. September 2009, David Bruce wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
So, TuxType is now 100% compliant - hooray!<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hooray indeed!! Caroline, many thanks for your work on this!<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
We should mention the licensing for the new sound files in<br>
README_SOUNDS.txt.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
IIRC this has happenend already - I can't check atm as I'm writing this<br>
offline and haven't updated my tuxtype svn checkout in a while...<br>
<br>
But, IIRC there were some files which were only released under a Creative<br>
Commons 2.0 licence, which sadly ain't free according to the DFSG... out of<br>
my head I'm not completly sure whether 2.5 is sufficient, 3.0 is definitly<br>
fine (provided it's the right CC licence, ie allowing commercial<br>
redistribution..)<br>
<br>
Instead of removing those files now, I'd propose to ask the authors to<br>
relicence them under a 3.0 CC licence - IME most everybody is fine with that,<br>
it just needs to be done ;-)<br>
<br>
<br>
regards,<br>
Holger, who is really really happy about this and very confident that we will<br>
sort out those pesky details :)<br></div></div><div class="im">
<br></div></blockquote></blockquote><div><br>I'm looking at these now. <a href="http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses">http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses</a> says that the only acceptable CC licenses for Debian are CC-BY 3.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0. <br>
<br>We have some that are _only_ 2.0 and 2.5 (and one that I think is a 2.5 with additional restrictions that I think we should remove regardless) . <br><br>I posted on twitter about the annoyance of incompatible free licenses and Greg Grossmeier (from Ubuntu) said that if I modify (make a derivative work of) the 2.5 or 2.0 original I can release under 3.0. (<a href="http://twitter.com/g_gerg/status/4127509381">http://twitter.com/g_gerg/status/4127509381</a>)<br>
<br>He says this is in part 4b of the CC-BY-SA 2.5 license. <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode</a><br><br>"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this
License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements
as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains
the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike
2.5 Japan)."<br><br>As I've modified all of the backgrounds by things such as cropping does this mean I can re-license under the DFSG-free CC-BY-SA (or CC-BY) 3.0? Will this be okay for Debian?<br><br>I noticed that click.ogg which tuxtype described as non-free is also in tuxmath, but without being flagged up. Do we/should we do anything about this?<br>
<br>Caroline<br><br><br></div></div><br>