On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 03:27 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
So in summary, I think that 10 million is pure fiction.
Does it really matter? We don't have access to the Creative Commons Web logs nor their referrer count for the Some Rights Reserved image (which is what they use for counting),
On Sat, 2005-04-02 at 11:52 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
You're just wrong here. The fact that a license /can/ be interpreted in
a way that would result in it being non-free does not mean that all
material under that license should be considered non-free.
I think that there is a spectrum of
I've made a new version of the Creative Commons license summary
available here:
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.txt
This version has the following changes since version 3:
* Changed definition to criteria per Francesco
So, as most people here know, we've been contacted by Creative Commons
to work out the issues over their licenses.
I got email from Lawrence Lessig this week that their new general
counsel, Mia Garlick, has been reviewing the debian-legal summary and
will have a response for us by 8 April. We'd
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 08:31:20AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 03:27 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
So in summary, I think that 10 million is pure fiction.
Does it really matter?
Not particularly, but there's no reason to spread the meme.
I'm going to modify the cc
On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 19:50 +0100, francois schnell wrote:
As both a Debian-Ubuntu and Creative Commons (CC) supporter, I really
hope that what you're doing here will work !
Me too!
It looks like there are at least 10 millions works realeased under
Creative Commons (according to Yahoo a
On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 15:31 -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
I haven't talked to Greg Pomerantz (SPI's lawyer) yet (he's on
vacation) but I'd like to bring him in and probably onto the group
that talks to Lessig.
I think this sounds excellent but might be complicated.
If you can pass along a
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following people have been proposed but haven't given a definitive
yes or no:
* MJ Ray
I'm happy to be part of the group, but I am not sure what resources
I am being asked to commit. So there will be a phone conference
at some random time? I've
On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 18:40 +, MJ Ray wrote:
I'm happy to be part of the group, but I am not sure what resources
I am being asked to commit. So there will be a phone conference
at some random time? I've no idea whether I can make that or not.
Me either. Let's just say participation in
Hello Dear.
I am writting this letter with due respect and heartful of tears since we have
not known or met ourselves previously I am asking for your assistance after I
have gone through a profile that speaks good of you.
I want to find out if it's possible for you to deal with individual as
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 08:31:20 -0400 Evan Prodromou wrote:
So in summary, I think that 10 million is pure fiction.
Maybe or maybe not.
I'm not saying that those data should be trusted, nor am I saying that
they shouldn't.
/According/ to that statistical results, we can say that...
Does it
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 20:13:09 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 12:43:35AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
[...]
No-one has posted a good definition
of documentation which doesn't include some programs, for
example.
Agreed.
... and nobody has posted solid rationale explaining why
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 11:51:56 -0400 Evan Prodromou wrote:
[...]
I got email from Lawrence Lessig this week that their new general
counsel, Mia Garlick, has been reviewing the debian-legal summary and
will have a response for us by 8 April.
This is good news.
We'd like to have a telephone
quote who=MJ Ray date=2005-03-31 20:01:27 +
Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
quote who=3DMJ Ray date=3D2005-03-30 22:15:15 +
[...] I'm not sure
about the situation when they just link to the ambiguous page
which has had clarifications issued in obscure places by CC
14 matches
Mail list logo
