Lachlan Hunt said: >> [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/
> Ah, crap! IANAL, but doesn't that non-commercial mark mean we technically > can't use this on any site we develop for our clients because we're getting > paid?! I sure that's not your intention, can't you use a more appropriate > licence like the CC attribution-only, modified BSD or, better yet, public > domain? I recommend public domain, with a little note requesting (but > not requiring) attribution. Agreed, when I first saw this I thought I'd found a replacement for the old trusty Suckerfish. The non-commercial requirement ties our hands to using this on many of the sites we'd like to. Thierry, will you reconsider this choice of licence? Chris ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
