Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CC BY SA 3.0 unported or ported or ...
On 07/11/2009 06:43 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: Any thoughts about this? I'm inclined to agree with Luis. I don't see any benefit to the ported CC license at this time. ~spot ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CC BY SA 3.0 unported or ported or ...
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 10:11:39AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: On 07/11/2009 06:43 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: Any thoughts about this? I'm inclined to agree with Luis. I don't see any benefit to the ported CC license at this time. Thanks; somehow I missed Luis originak reply as well. Unported it is! - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 pgpjMeP990zGA.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CC BY SA 3.0 unported or ported or ...
Any thoughts about this? On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 07:27:36PM -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: I understand there are a few types of CC BY SA 3.0 license, ported and unported. http://monitor.creativecommons.org/Unported Which do we want to use when relicening all Fedora content and as our default license choice (for now)? Or is it really a three-way choice? 1. Ported only 2. Unported only 3. Ported where it exists, otherwise unported Thanks - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 pgpKDaZDVA0KW.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
