On 20/12/10 13:47, Paul Hertz wrote: > > It's notable that the article itself was published under Creative > Commons, which is designed to recognize intellectual property and > extend but not challenge copyright laws, rather than under a free > software license. At a minimum, that reveals how confusion abounds > about the exact nature of the various licenses, and how they are often > treated as interchangeable.
To be fair, Mako was an early critic of this confusion - I've not met anyone who isn't a *critical* supporter of CC, but BY-SA is the best licence we have for copylefting cultural works. _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
