[arch-dev-public] Licenses: Is Creative Commons in our list?

[Thayer Williams]

On May 04, 2008 11:02 AM PDT, Jason Chu <jason at archlinux.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Thayer Williams <thayer at archlinux.org> wrote:
> >
> > On May 04, 2008 12:17 AM PDT, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  > On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Thayer Williams <thayer at 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.