Steve Litt wrote:
On Friday 16 June 2006 11:50 am, David Neeley wrote:
Finally, I do believe that if you wish to be covered, the wiki should
have a copyright statement something like:
"Files submitted to the wiki for general download are covered by the
XXX license in the name of their respective author, unless specified
otherwise by the contributing authors."
That sounds good.
I would suggest something like the BSD license as the basic one, so
there are no real limitations or questions about use--commercial or
otherwise--but giving the contributor the option of choosing another
one if he or she desires. That way, if the files can be copyrighted,
they would be covered in all cases.
That also sounds good, at least for most stuff, including what I emailed a
couple days ago. If it were something I worked 60 hours on I might go GPL to
prevent a Microsoft Kerberos type situation, but my layout files aren't that
type of work.
Thanks for the clarification and good idea.
http://www.c4.net/Index.cfm?Method=NewsStories.NewsStory&NewsStory_ID=143
"This article at the Register discusses one of the major hurtles
confronting would be challengers to the Microsoft throne, fonts. It may
seem like an insignificant part of the whole, but it is important enough
that current U.S. law actually makes an exception for copyrighting the
shape and design of fonts in the name of free press. This means that,
for all intents and purposes, you could rename a font and redistribute
it…in the States. Other countries are not so forgiving, and that's where
trouble comes into paradise."
