It is indeed CC-By, which is also seen by many people who are far
smarter than I am as incompatible with (A)GPL.
Mike Linksvayer wrote at 10:03 (EST) on Tuesday:
I'd love to see the analysis, or mere assertion, of this if there's
any online.
+1 :)
It might not be completely crazy to add
Hi,
thanks for all the good input so far. I have in fact contacted the
author of the original templates and asked for a different licensing.
I don't know why the code and media (or everything but the media, ie
images in this case), couldn't be licensed separately, under AGPL and
CC BY
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 14:08 +0100, David Roetzel wrote:
3. I based the web design (html, css and some images) on a free
template under Creative Commons Attribution license.
This is where it gets messy. Again I have no problem with giving
attribution, but the original template code is now
Michael R. Bernstein wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 14:08 +0100, David Roetzel wrote:
3. I based the web design (html, css and some images) on a free
template under Creative Commons Attribution license.
This is where it gets messy. Again I have no problem with giving
attribution, but the
