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:
posted mailed
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.
snip
Now, the whole idea of applying the same freeness criteria to what I
call non-software content, looks like
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, then
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,
Four of them (with NonCommercial or NoDerivatives elements) are clearly
not intended to be DSFG-free. It seems to the untrained eye that the
other two (Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike) are. The problems we
have with these licenses are more or less ones of clarity and wording
rather than
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
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
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 people
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/
Four
9 matches
Mail list logo
