"Joe Smith" <[email protected]> writes: > The legal code is long and complex, because it can be. The whole point > of the Creative Commons > Licenses is that the license text is not included with the work, but > instead just the license URL is included.
I'd hardly call that “the whole point” of the licenses; if anything, it's a property of how they're used. It's also a pretty poor practice: it makes access to that specific document online a pre-condition to knowing the license terms in the work at any given time, and it denies the possibility of the URL leading to a different document (or to nothing) at some arbitrary future time. > Thus the CC0 licence takes only one line to apply to a work. > > #<authorname>makes this work avilable under CC0 > (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) > > That is a heck of a lot simpler than including the Expat license Nonsense. Exactly the same approach could be taken with the Expat license; this is not a distinguishing feature of the Creative Commons licenses. > Of course, for software sticking with Expat makes good sense, but > Expat could be a bit of a pain to use as the license for an mp3 (for > example). Of course, an MP3 is also software :-) and is equally valid as a work for applying the Expat license. -- \ “Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe | `\ or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” —Arthur C. Clarke, | _o__) 1999 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
