On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 04:40 +0200, guy keren wrote: > i made another small update to the lessons plan. i also took benny's > current 'reference document' and placed on the site (after bumping the > version number to 0.4.0). > Saw that. Currently merging from the updated plan...
> we still have not figured out which license to use for the documents, > which is bad.... ofcourse, it is my fault for not making up my mind. > > i think that at least for now, i will stick to a creative-commons > attribution/share-alike license, unless anyone here as any objection (note > that this license allows commercial use of the material. this is > important, in order to allow people to sell printed versions of the > material - if we get there one day :0 ). > > in particular, i would like to get benny's permission to use this license > for the 'reference document', and the various slides. BY-SA is quite like GPL, except it doesn't separate "source" from "executable". Yep, I'm happy with it. A Hebrew link should obviously be used, so students/teachers can readily understand what the license says: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/deed.he For version 1.0, there was an Israeli version where the legal code was also in Hebrew: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/il/deed.he http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/il/legalcode but it's only in draft stage for 2.5 currently: http://creativecommons.org.il/blog/?p=16 IANAL so I have no idea whether sticking with 1.0/il or 2.5 is better. I agree to both :-).
