It didn't say "equal to" though. It said "contains the same". In vernacular English it can go either way. Do you have a picture of Lindsay Lohan and one of Keira Knightly on your website? Cool, my site contains the same ones. (But I also have a picture of a decapitated elephant.) And my new, improved license contains all the same elements as the two old ones. Andreas Haugstrup wrote: On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:23:27 +0200, Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Andreas Haugstrup wrote: Normally, yes, but not in this care. The license says: "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan)." It must contain the same elements. It doesn't prohibit it from containing a few more as well!I don't know where you took your math classes, but around here there's a big difference between "equal to" and "equal to or more". :o)
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|
- [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical Enric
- Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical Charles HOPE
- Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical Andreas Haugstrup
- Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical Charles HOPE
- Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radic... Andreas Haugstrup
- Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright ... Charles HOPE
- Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyri... Michael Verdi
- [videoblogging] Re: Copyri... wtrainbow
- [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical Enric
- Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical Andreas Haugstrup