"Joe Smith" writes:
> The legal code is long and complex, because it can be. The whole point
> of the Creative Commons
> Licenses is that the license text is not included with the work, but
> instead just the license URL is included.
I'd hardly call that “the whole point” of the licenses; if any
"Ken Arromdee" wrote in message
news:20090322071908.98b07b...@violet.rahul.net...
First sale in the US only applies if the product was made in the US.
Where on Earth did you hear or read that? I've never head such a thing.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/523/135/case.html
Read carefully the s
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Joe Smith wrote:
>
> Thus the CC0 licence takes only one line to apply to a work.
>
> #makes this work avilable under CC0
> (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)
The CC folks prefer that you use this actually:
To the extent possible under law, has
Ben Finney wrote
Yes. If anything, the length of verbiage that Creative Commons feels
necessary to effectively place a work in the public domain, under the
current copyright regime, only supports the idea that it's
significantly *more* complicated than working with copyright and using
an appropr
>> First sale in the US only applies if the product was made in the US.
>Where on Earth did you hear or read that? I've never head such a thing.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/523/135/case.html
Read carefully the sections describing 602(a), particularly page 148.
# copies that are not subject to
5 matches
Mail list logo
