Chris Taylor wrote: > Lachlan Hunt said: >>> [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/ > >> Ah, crap! IANAL, but doesn't that non-commercial mark mean we >> technically can't use this on any site we develop for our clients >> because we're getting paid?! I sure that's not your intention, >> can't you use a more appropriate licence like the CC >> attribution-only, modified BSD or, better yet, public domain? I >> recommend public domain, with a little note requesting (but
>> not requiring) attribution. > Agreed, when I first saw this I thought I'd found a replacement for > the old trusty Suckerfish. The non-commercial requirement ties our > hands to using this on many of the sites we'd like to. Thierry, will > you reconsider this choice of licence? Hi Chris, See my reply to Lachlan, I have no problem with people using it on sites they build for clients. --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
