On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 11:37:02PM -0800, Nelson Pavlosky wrote: > > The question, of course, is "which license"? > > Last time we discussed this issue, we came to the conclusion that we > should use a simple Attribution license, and avoid all of the > incompatibility issues between by-nc-sa and by-sa. Does that still make > sense? Do the CC 3.0 licenses affect our decision at all, since they > claim to have made by-sa compatible with other non-CC licenses? > <http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#BY-SA_.E2.80.94_Compatibility_Structure_Introduced> > Do the benefits of viral licensing now outweigh the compatibility costs?
"By" is certainly the most fitting for anyone who simply wants to put their work out there - it's essentially functionally equivalent to public domain, no? by-nc-sa and by-sa incompatibilities suck and have turned me off both simultaneously and by-sa changes in version 3.0 haven't made them any less incompatible. So, yeah, just attribution seems the most sensible to me. But I'm also curious if anyone has ever actually made a derivative of a blog (which wouldn't be covered under fair use, i.e., isn't just quotations) ;). -nile -- .''`. | This Sig Kills Fascists! : :' : | http://deadbox.ath.cx `. `' `-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
