Sorry, are we talking about the wiki or the blog here? I think CC-BY is fine for the blog, and think dual licensing for the wiki would be a good idea (by-sa / gfdl?) <-----Original Message-----> >From: Nelson Pavlosky [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: 2/27/2007 12:29:03 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] Which CC license should we use on the FC.o blog? > >On 2/27/07, Chris Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Why not a dual license it? Do both BY-SA and GFDL. If there ever get >> together, then no problem, if never then you are compatibile with >> both. That is what I do with my images I upload to wikipedia.... > >Because that would make my head hurt, and confuse people. Also I'm >pretty sure the CC plugin only lets you select one license at a time. > >For the moment I think we'll stick with the status quo (CC-BY) as >Gavin suggests, but we can return to the question again in the future >(i.e. when FC.o gets more organized and it's clear how such decisions >should be made). Nobody seemed violently opposed to the Attribution >license. > >~Nelson~ >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >[email protected] >http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >. >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
