Hi Thomas, The CC Attribution, Share-Alike license is similar to the GPL but not specifically created for software. You'd be better off using the CC GPL license.
The CC Attribution license, on the other hand, is very similar to the MIT license but without the no-warranty clause. I would personally love to see a CC MIT license and asked Lawrence Lessig about this during FF Seattle but I don't think I phrased the question clearly enough. I hope to take this up with the Commons when I have some time. All the best, Aral Thomas wrote: > Very interessting topic. > > What do you think of this licence : > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/fr/deed.en_GB > Here is what I've understood, please correct me if I'm > misunderstanding something: > I think it can be very useful because the author keeps the patternity > of his work, you can use it for commercial project, and you have to > share your code when you've modified it (so OS contribution!) > And in the case that you don't want to make you modification > open-source, you can ask the author to make a special licence (with a > possible payment for that). > <snip> _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
