Well, thanks to everyone for triggering an interesting internal debate within SPARC as to what CC licenses they should be using.
It does seem logical that as a non-profit organization trying to spread their message as widely as possible, they should use licenses with as few restrictions as possible, and avoid using a Non-Commercial license. I think I will recommend to them that they use a simple CC-BY license (just requiring Attribution), to avoid the licensing compatibility problems that a BY-SA license could cause. I believe that the last time SFC looked into this question we determined that CC-BY is the best license currently available. I must admit that I find it saddening that BY-SA isn't the standard for artistic works the way that the GPL is a standard for software, however. What do y'all think? Peace, ~Nelson~ Dean Jansen wrote: > I assume he means this: > > "Copyright, 2008 SPARC, subject to a Creative Commons > Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 > License<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/> > " > > and that NC = lame (especially in this case) > > That's just my interpretation of the comment though, so who knows. > > --Dean > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Nelson Pavlosky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> Rob Myers wrote: >> >>> Rather than comment on the NC failage in this competition I'll just >>> draw your attention to: >>> >>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=iVCGmyRrmUc >>> >>> - Rob. >>> >> What does "NC failage" mean? >> >> ~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 > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
