On 2004-06-08 17:06:25 +0100 Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
a number of mix-and-match license elements (Attribution, ShareAlike,
NonCommercial, NoDerivatives). So any CC license that would require
Attribution would also fall under this analysis.
Do any SA/NC/ND licences not include attribution?
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/attribution.php
This is not, of course, canonical for Debian, but it does provide some
suggestion that a group following guidelines similar to ours don't see
a serious problem with requiring attribution.
I don't think OSI follows similar guidelines. Notably, Debian does not
require contributors to its process to use non-free software, defaults
to "no consensus" (sometimes annoyingly so) and only produces licence
summaries if driven.
Even so, I'd be amazed that OSI approved a licence that includes
advertising in the licence and requires a program to do a particular
act, were I not already convinced that OSI has gone bad. The
Initiative Failed a long time ago, it seems. In the words of USPTO:
Opensource is Dead.
[...] Apache 2.0 also requires attribution (in the NOTICE file).
I still think that licence looks like it has be considered
case-by-case, as there is scope to abuse it.
3) As for the trademark clause [...] If A grants B the
rights outlined in Attribution 1.0, no increase in trademark
restrictions by the third-party Creative Commons could revoke those
rights.
Can you explain this more? How is it compliance with the licence not
to obtain "prior written consent of Creative Commons" before using
their trademark in a normally-permitted manner that is not "in
compliance with Creative Commons' then-current trademark usage
guidelines" ?
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/
