On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:14:27 -0500 Joe Smith wrote:
[...]
> Well that is just the non-legalese synopsis of the CC-by-2.5.
It seems so.
> It was not intended to be used as an actual licence text.
Definitely *not* intended.
> It certainly can be used as a licence text. (Just about anything can
>
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 00:38:34 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 11:57:13PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > On Thu, 08 Feb 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > The DFSG refers to copyright licensing, it doesn't cover patents
> > > > or
Invitation
Please consider contributing to ICAS 2007, ICNS 2007 and the associated
workshops listed below.
Conference: June 19-25, 2007, Athens, Greece
Important deadline for full paper submission: February 10, 2007
Please forward the Call for Submissions to the appropriate groups.
==
"Matthew Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've seen a previous review from debian legal about the Creative Commons
licences which renders them non free. However, I've just come across a
licence
claiming to be "C
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Stephen Gran wrote:
All data files, except the songs and the font files mentioned above,
are licensed under the following license:
Creative Commons Deed Attribution 2.5
That looks fine.
cool
This one time, at band camp, Matthew Johnson said:
> I've seen a previous review from debian legal about the Creative Commons
> licences which renders them non free. However, I've just come across a licence
> claiming to be "Creative Commons Deed Attribution 2.5" which is considerably
> shorter and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've seen a previous review from debian legal about the Creative Commons
licences which renders them non free. However, I've just come across a licence
claiming to be "Creative Commons Deed Attribution 2.5" which is considerably
shorter and afaict is
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 11:57:13PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Thu, 08 Feb 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > The DFSG refers to copyright licensing, it doesn't cover patents or
> > > trademarks.
> > It actually doesn't refer to any of them specifica
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 11:57:13PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The DFSG refers to copyright licensing, it doesn't cover patents or
> > trademarks.
> It actually doesn't refer to any of them specifically. It does talk
> about licensing, but it doesn't
9 matches
Mail list logo
