On 2004-07-12 08:18:21 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Why, particularly, should he deviate from the fine example set by
Craig
Sanders and other supporters of Proposal D?
Craig Sanders himself voted Further Discussion as second preference
and ignored all other outcomes, de
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 09:11:08AM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
> > Now, the whole idea of applying the same "freeness criteria" to what I
> > call non-software content, looks like a complete nonsense to me,
>
> Can we give it up? We've had at least a year of discussion on this
> subject, then a vote,
Thibaut VARENE wrote:
> First, let me try to define what I'm calling "non-software":
Stop. Call it "non-programs". Here, when we say "software", we mean "it
ain't hardware".
> Now, the whole idea of applying the same "freeness criteria" to what I
> call non-software content, looks like a com
Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 19:08, MJ Ray wrote:
>
>> Numerous people have tried many angles. More are welcome, as we
>> clearly haven't found the correct approach yet.
>
> So, I'd like to write a draft summary for the 6 Creative Commons 2.0
> licenses:
>
> http://crea
> Now, the whole idea of applying the same "freeness criteria" to what I
> call non-software content, looks like a complete nonsense to me,
Can we give it up? We've had at least a year of discussion on this
subject, then a vote, then long flame-wars all over the place, then
another vote, since peo
On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 09:23, tom wrote:
> My doubt is: dfsg should cover the 4 freedom of fsf.
I think this is a non-issue. The DFSG is the DFSG, nothing more or less.
> How does CC respect the availability of source code?
The licenses neither enforce nor prevent a licensee's distribution of
so
On 7/6/2004, "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My doubt is: dfsg should cover the 4 freedom of fsf. How does CC respect the
>availability of source code?
>I mean FDL does something like that with the provision of a copy in an open
>format when you distribute a certenly amount of copies.
>Can we
Aconsegueix [EMAIL PROTECTED] gratuÏtament a http://teatre.com
:-))-:
On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 19:08, MJ Ray wrote:
> Numerous people have tried many angles. More are welcome, as we
> clearly haven't found the correct approach yet.
So, I'd like to write a draft summary for the 6 Creative Commons 2.0
licenses:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
Fou
9 matches
Mail list logo
