Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Suffield wrote: > > So were we (expecting this to be a trivial bug which would be rapidly > > corrected), but when they were asked we got a non-response and it > > hasn't been fixed *years later*, which made us rather less sure. > Alright, let me have a go at this one. It looks like the simplest thing to > fix. If I hit a brick wall, I won't bother bringing up the other issue.
For an example of one time people asked and we got a reply, see http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2004-June/000934.html I dislike their apparent stance of: if that combination is overruled by fair use, they can rely on the courts instead of getting us to clarify it. > What should CC do to make the note sufficiently obvious? A header saying "Creative Commons Trademark License - Not Part of the Copyirght License" would cover it, I think. However, this requires a positive action from them, so see http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2004-June/000922.html Their position may have changed in the last seven or so months. I've not been following their project much. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]