On May 04, 2008 11:02 AM PDT, Jason Chu <jason@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Thayer Williams <thayer@archlinux.org> wrote:
On May 04, 2008 12:17 AM PDT, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Thayer Williams <thayer@archlinux.org> wrote:
Excuse the naive question, but while putting together some PKGBUILDs for the Arch artwork stuff, I couldn't find any reference to the Creative Commons licenses in /usr/share/licenses. Am I missing something or do we need to add this to our collection?
The Arch Linux logo (and other related artwork) is released under CC license so I want to make sure I flag these properly.
I don't believe it is. I can add it to the package if we have a need for it though. If you could track me down a plain-text copy of it or point me to a link, that would be great.
-Dan
I'll do that...I did discover that a couple of packages (e.g. tango-icon-theme) do use an individual copy of the CC license.
The thing is, there are several versions of this license and each with their own version numbers (2.0, 2.5, etc.) so I can see it being a potential headache. At the same time it's use is becoming mainstream so it might be worthwhile.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
I think the different versions are fairly compatible (maybe I'm wrong), but you would have to support all the variations for sure: cc-by, cc-by-nc, cc-by-nd, cc-by-nc-nd, cc-by-sa, cc-by-nc-sa, cc-sampling+, cc-nc-sampling+, etc.
I suppose we could just add them as we go. How many have you seen in the wild as of yet?
Jason
With respect to the packages I have installed on my machine, the only CC license appears to be the tango-icon-theme, but I have no idea about other theme-oriented pkgs. As far as in the wild at large, it's one of the most common (if not the most common) licenses for community-released media, artwork, etc. Like you said, maybe we should add it as needed--the Arch stuff is all attribution-noncommercial-sharealike so that's a good place to start.