Richard Fontana <> writes:
>Yes, but I'd have to dig the details up since the review of these
>licenses took place in (I believe) 2008.  I've been meaning to do that
>anyway, and to publish the rationale.  In at least one case (OCLC-2.0)
>at least one issue involved restrictions on commercial use. 

I don't see those restrictions in OCLC-2.0, but maybe I'm missing
something.  If you happen to remember the clause, please post here; no
worries if you don't have time to dig it up though.

License-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to