2009/9/7 shirish <[email protected]>: > in-line :- > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 09:38, Raj Mathur<[email protected]> wrote: >> On Monday 07 Sep 2009, shirish wrote: >>> So you want the list to have a particular way of defining rights >>> which works best to your interest. >> >> Er, that's rather a large assumptive leap, isn't it? I'd thrown in CC- >> BY-SA as a suggestion, though I fail to see how it works to my interest >> in any way (apart from working for the list in general, which includes >> me). Point being, there ought to be a overall licence for the list, not >> individual licences per e-mail. > > yes, it was an assumption. > > I agree that there should be a clear license for this list. > >>> I would be particularly >>> interested to know why CC-SA and not CC-SA-A if we are talking about >>> the CC licenses. >> Is there such a licence, CC-SA-A? > > I stand corrected, it is CC-SA has attribution in-built. > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ > >> Regards, >> >> -- Raj >> -- >> Raj Mathur [email protected] http://kandalaya.org/ >> GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F >> PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves > > -- > Regards, > Shirish Agarwal > My quotes in this email licensed under CC 3.0 > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ > http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com > 065C 6D79 A68C E7EA 52B3 8D70 950D 53FB 729A 8B17
Can I reply to this email that says it is CC 3.0, if mine is GNU FDL 1.0 :-P -- Cheers Ajay Pal Singh Atwal ----- My quotes in this email licensed under GNU FDL 1.0 _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
