On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 00:10 -0500, Luis Villa wrote: > On 1/24/07, Jon Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 17:35 -0800, Mike Linksvayer wrote: > > > On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 17:04 -0500, Jesse Warden wrote: > > > > I don't know Chris personally, but as much as I can tell from emails, > > > > he doesn't believe it is an effective license for software > > > > development, feels that the document & UI elements that CC can also be > > > > applied to are not something Google Code currently focuses on, and > > > > bottom line feels that it runs contrary to keep the amount of licenses > > > > low. > > > > > > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Commons_license_for_software.3F > > > > Yes, CC licenses are not for software. CC recommends using GNU GPL and > > LGPL for source code. Hence, Google Code is right on point with not > > using CC licenses in this way. > > That said, there are projects that will use Google Code that should > appropriately be 'license X for code, license Y for art/docs/etc.' It > might not be unreasonable to discuss mixed-license scenarios with the > Google Code folks at some point, and let them know that that is a > scenario they should consider for the future. (Esp. if more licenses > become more cross-compatible in the future as we expect with GPL v3 > and other new licenses.) > > Luis
Yes, this is true...Would you both like to help hash out a plan for this? It would be good to dream up how to support this :) Oh know, a universe of per-document licenses :) Jon -- Jon Phillips San Francisco, CA USA PH 510.499.0894 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rejon.org MSN, AIM, Yahoo Chat: kidproto Jabber Chat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
