I did a quick review after seeing the message to debian-legal; the *changes*
look fine (several are very valuable improvements, such as the addition of
or copyright law to the first clause). But I never did review the
original licenses, which I should
From the point of view of Debian, it
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:44:23AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I spotted the following problem in part of the text which isn't actually part
of the license:
Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the Work is
licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use the
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:44:23AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I spotted the following problem in part of the text which isn't actually
part
of the license:
Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the Work
is
licensed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Creative Commons (http://www.creativecommons.org/) has begun a public
comment period for the draft of the next version of their open content
(-ish) licenses. Creative Commons has 11+ licenses with a variety of
mixins -- requiring attribution,
* Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-01-27 12:20]:
Creative Commons (http://www.creativecommons.org/) has begun a public
Sorry for the off-topic posting, but I hope Evan will see it. Evan,
your mail bounces:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
host lookup did not complete: retry timeout exceeded
Please
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Creative Commons (http://www.creativecommons.org/) has begun a public
comment period for the draft of the next version of their open content
(-ish) licenses. Creative Commons has 11+ licenses with a variety of
mixins -- requiring attribution,
6 matches
Mail list logo
