Jim Cheetham wrote:
Michael JasonSmith wrote:
On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 17:37, Douglas Royds wrote:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
I personally like the share-alike aspect of the above licence; I suspect more submitters would be happy with http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ which just requires that the original author is given attribution.
In a wiki environment, as I see it, there is no way to guarantee to preserve attribution easily. Changes are logged, but contributors might be anonymous. So the licenses/by* are probably not appropriate ... and I can't see anything like an nc-sa one ...
I'm a lot more concerned with share-alike than with attribution. If it ain't share-alike, I'm not going to contibute.
======================================================================= This email, including any attachments, is only for the intended addressee. It is subject to copyright, is confidential and may be the subject of legal or other privilege, none of which is waived or lost by reason of this transmission. If the receiver is not the intended addressee, please accept our apologies, notify us by return, delete all copies and perform no other act on the email. Unfortunately, we cannot warrant that the email has not been altered or corrupted during transmission. =======================================================================
