I just had to defend the CC-BY-SA

I just sent a lengthy email into the Debian bug tracking system. I originally tried to send it directly to the developers through an already "closed" bug (which was returned undeliverable) so I sent it again to submit@bugs.debian.org. I sent it with the proper headings (I hope) so that it would get to the developers. the subject was "VRMS-Why is the Tango Icon theme listed as non-free", and the project in question is vrms or (Virtual Richard M. Stallman) which is a program that will analyze the set of currently-installed packages on a Debian-based system, and report all of the packages from the non-free tree which are currently installed. So here is my mail (in full) for all to enjoy...


Package: vrms
Version:
Hello:

I was looking at the change log for vrms 1.13, and can't understand why this is listed as non-free. It is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license. Which allows users to copy, distribute and transmit the work. As well as to adapt the work. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/)

Now let's look at that in reference to the 4 freedoms as put forth by the FSF...
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

*The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

This is implied you kind of have me there.

*The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

You are free to Remix — to adapt the work

*The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

You are free to Share — to copy,distribute and transmit the work

* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.


Ok now for some snippets that I couldn't fit into the model above:

(from the Free Software Definition)
"However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them."

This is exactly like the share-alike clause.

(from GPLv3 [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html])
"For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users' and authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to authors of previous versions."

This is exactly like the attribution clause.

Here is a little bit from "Various Licenses and Comments about Them" (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html)

Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license (a.k.a. CC-BY)

This is a non-copyleft free license that is good for art [see that] and entertainment works, and educational works. Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL.

Creative Commons publishes many licenses which are very different. Therefore, to say that a work “uses a Creative Commons license” is to leave the principal questions about the work's licensing unanswered. When you see such a statement in a work, please ask the author to highlight the substance of the license choices. And if someone proposes to “use a Creative Commons license” for a certain work, it is vital to ask immediately, “Which one?” [good point, for another discussion]

Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 license (a.k.a. CC-BY-SA)

This is a copyleft free license that is good for artistic [again talking about art] and entertainment works, and educational works. Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL.

Please see additional comments about Creative Commons licenses just above.

I think that it is a little unfair to call something non-free that is licensed under such a free license. The CC-attribution, share alike is almost exactly the GPL. The only issue I see is there is no source code for an image, but you are given the freedom to "remix" it as you like. There is nothing stopping you from retaining all of your freedoms, and the FSF itself says that it's okay for art and icon are art, so please remove this from the list.

Thank you for your time,

three
threethirty,us
three@threethirty.us