Whoops. I accidentally pressed send. Let's try that again... On 20/12/10 14:18, Rob Myers wrote: > 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 -
http://www.metamute.org/en/Freedoms-Standard-Advanced > 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. No copyright licence undermines copyright, as it relies on copyright to operate. It can however use copyright's weight against itself to ironise it. - Rob. _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
