On 1/24/07, Jon Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 17:35 -0800, Mike Linksvayer wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 17:04 -0500, Jesse Warden wrote: > > > I don't know Chris personally, but as much as I can tell from emails, > > > he doesn't believe it is an effective license for software > > > development, feels that the document & UI elements that CC can also be > > > applied to are not something Google Code currently focuses on, and > > > bottom line feels that it runs contrary to keep the amount of licenses > > > low. > > > > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Commons_license_for_software.3F > > Yes, CC licenses are not for software. CC recommends using GNU GPL and > LGPL for source code. Hence, Google Code is right on point with not > using CC licenses in this way.
That said, there are projects that will use Google Code that should appropriately be 'license X for code, license Y for art/docs/etc.' It might not be unreasonable to discuss mixed-license scenarios with the Google Code folks at some point, and let them know that that is a scenario they should consider for the future. (Esp. if more licenses become more cross-compatible in the future as we expect with GPL v3 and other new licenses.) Luis _______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
