Evan Prodromou wrote: >> Commented in another post.... if it really prohibited parallel >> distribution, I would think it's non-free -- but I think it does *not* >> prohibit parallel distribution. So I think it *is* free. > > Yeah, I'd like to believe that. Now, here's the funny part: if the board > and the international affiliates of CC vigorously opposed the idea of > parallel distribution
I'm not sure they did. If they really did, then I guess we can't assume that it allows parallel distribution. But I really don't think they did. > and had a clause explicitly permitting it removed > from the license, They may have simply opposed the complexity and apparent "support" given to DRM by an explicit clause. Everything I've read indicates that that's the case, but doesn't indicate that they actually per se opposed parallel distribution. Unfortunately we have a lack of information on their intentions. > can we reasonably assume that the license as it stands > still allows parallel distribution? Well, I think given the lack of clarity of their intentions we can assume it means what it says in "plain English". Getting some clarity on their intentions would be *way* better, though. -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]