On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 07:35:27 -0500 Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> (Note: I haven't looked over the v2.0 license in any detail yet. The
> above is assuming that nothing significant has changed. So though I
> doubt it, I can't say for certain that there aren't other issues in
> the v2 license.)
Evan Pro
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Thanks for the direct link. A lot of folks prefer the actual text to
>> be posted as well, though. It makes things easier for those (like
>> myself) who are behind slow connections or even read mail offline.
>
> Heh. Just goes
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Thanks for the direct link. A lot of folks prefer the actual text to be
> posted as well, though. It makes things easier for those (like myself)
> who are behind slow connections or even read mail offline.
Heh. Just goes to show how different people will reach different
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What should CC do to make the note sufficiently obvious?
Just indicate, preferably via text rather than page design, that the
last bit isn't part of the license (i.e., not something the licensor
requires of the licensees) but just a disclaimer for the
xt to be
posted as well, though. It makes things easier for those (like myself)
who are behind slow connections or even read mail offline.
> Version 2.0 looks almost the same to me, so I assume that the concerns
> remain. I would be glad to see the CC-BY license inch a little closer
>
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > So were we (expecting this to be a trivial bug which would be rapidly
> > corrected), but when they were asked we got a non-response and it
> > hasn't been fixed *years later*, which made us rather less sure.
> Alright, let me h
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > The third justification refers to "the trademark notice on the license's
> > website where it is not obvious if this notice is part of the license."
> >
> > I'm pretty sure the trademarrk notice is not part of the license.
>
> So were we (expecting this to be a trivia
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 04:24:35AM -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> The license doesn't say that the name must be prominent. It says that it
> must be "at least as prominent" as other credit. Last week I asked the
> cc-community list if I could just have an appendix titled "contributors"
> and put
enses/dls-006-ccby
Version 2.0 looks almost the same to me, so I assume that the concerns
remain. I would be glad to see the CC-BY license inch a little closer
towards "free" status.
The Debian-legal page above includes this justification (among others) for
the non-free status:
It
9 matches
Mail list logo
