+1 (I'd vote for 'attribtion no-deriv'.)
Tim On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:39:14 +0200 Quim Gil <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ext Andrew Flegg wrote: > >>> Copyright (c) 2002-2009 Nokia Corporation > >> To what? :) > > What about a footer inspired by the one at > http://creativecommons.org ? > > "Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is > licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License" > > If there is Nokia copyrighted content under maemo.org it is the task > of the related Nokia owners to state that in the relevant pages. > Since the norm is not to have such type of content in maemo.org, > there is no need for a mention in the home or every single page. > > How really relevant is to state the 2002-2008 period in any case? To > start with, was it there any maemo.org on 2002? > > And in a project like maemo.org, what is the big interest pushing a > "(c)" compared to a much more appropriate CC logo and notice? > _______________________________________________ maemo-community mailing list [email protected] https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community
