On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote: > Hi list, > > Anselm R Garbe wrote: >> >> On 21 June 2010 17:27, Uriel<ur...@berlinblue.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:56 PM, anonymous<ake7z...@lavabit.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 09:46:12PM +0200, ⚖ Alexander "Surma" Surma >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I was just about to ask, Creatives Common BY-SA? >>>> >>>> Already discussed on this list, but for software instead of art. >>>> Unlicense[1] for software, >>> >>> While in principle I like the idea of the 'unlicense', its legal value >>> is very questionable. For software and code sticking with the classic >>> BSD/MIT/ISC licenses is a much better idea. >>> >>> I personally 'dual-license' my code as ISC and then release it to the >>> public domain. >> >> I kind of liked the license 20h was using in the past: >> >> "Copy me if you can" > > it is not a license. I am pretending that everyone's considering > my work public domain. It is a post-license. Because of a lawyer, > who analyzed this[0], regarding Geomyidae, I changed all maybe > useful code to MIT/X. > MIT/X is the best balance between "Keep respect to me." and "Kim- > Jong Uriel", yes, build your physical package with it.".
Hahaha, this made my day, added it to the cat-v fortunes file: http://fortunes.cat-v.org/cat-v/ uriel > Sincerely, > > Christoph > > [0] > http://blog.iusmentis.com/2008/09/29/geomyidae-publiek-domein-behalve-als-u-niet-netjes-handelt/ > > >