On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Russell Nelson wrote:
Evan Prodromou writes:
So, the Creative Commons licenses are not OSI-approved:
Only because nobody has submitted them.
As I see it only 2 of the 6 permutations would qualify as Open Source if
applied to software. The no derivatives and no
Evan Prodromou writes:
So, the Creative Commons licenses are not OSI-approved:
Only because nobody has submitted them.
In discussing this on the Creative Commons cc-licenses list, one
commenter thought that the Attribution license element* would not meet
the OSD.
EP == Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
EP So, the Creative Commons licenses are not OSI-approved:
EP http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
EP I think there are two licenses that meet the Open Source
EP Definition: the Attribution license:
EP
--- Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, the Creative Commons licenses are not OSI-approved:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
I think there are two licenses that meet the Open Source Definition:
the Attribution license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
...and the
-discuss
Subject: Re: Creative Commons Attribution
EP == Ernest Prabhakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
EP Well obnoxiousness per se is not part of the OSI criteria,
EP though it will surely get you castigated on this mailing
EP list. :-)
It would be an interesting exercise
So, the Creative Commons licenses are not OSI-approved:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
I think there are two licenses that meet the Open Source Definition:
the Attribution license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
...and the Attribution-ShareAlike license:
Hi Evan,
On Jun 4, 2004, at 8:46 AM, Evan Prodromou wrote:
The Attribution license element requires that the upstream creator's
copyright notices be kept intact; that their names or pseudonyms, if
provided, be included in the work where other authors' names are, as
best as possible for the medium;
may
EP differ from this?
I can't see any significant difference. The text of the Creative
Commons Attribution license element follows:
2. If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or
Collective Works
Hello,
I would like to submit the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial
License for review toward approval:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/
Thank you for your consideration.
Z.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
--On 18 September 2003 15:39 +0200 Zoe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I would like to submit the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial License for review toward approval:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/
The licence appears to fail (at least) OSD #6 - No Discrimination
This is not your license (made by you).
How can you submit other people's license for
approval?
--- Zoe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I would like to submit the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial
License for review toward approval:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc
Andy Tai [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is not your license (made by you).
How can you submit other people's license for
approval?
I don't see anything wrong with doing this. What is your concern?
Ian
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Andy Tai scripsit:
This is not your license (made by you).
How can you submit other people's license for
approval?
Anyone can submit a license for approval. The only problem is that if the
OSI wants changes, the submitter can't very well make them.
--
They do not preach
13 matches
Mail list logo
