On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 17:32 -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> ... and the fact that they refuse to fix such a simple thing bodes very ill
> for getting more serious problems fixed ...
The Debian Creative Commons Workgroup has been talking to CC for about a
month now. We've had some pretty successful
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 05:08:08PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >I'm not convinced by the trademark argument - I think it's pretty clear
> >from the HTML that it's not intended to be part of the license. Yes, it
> >would be better if that was made clearer, but:
> >
> >a
Matthew Garrett wrote:
>I'm not convinced by the trademark argument - I think it's pretty clear
>from the HTML that it's not intended to be part of the license. Yes, it
>would be better if that was made clearer, but:
>
>a) CC appear to have said that it's not part of the license, and:
This one fal
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we need to stay focused somewhere in the middle. A good metric
> is to be suspicious of any language that appears non-free, absent other
> information. In other words, err on the conservative side.
I'd tend to agree, though I'm not sure that tha
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 01:45:02 +0200 Thomas wrote:
> I think that one of the biggest differences between CC and dfsg is the
> meaning and the value we give to the word "software".
>
> Remember that the goal of CC is to give tools (licenses) that allow
> the author to use the copyright not in its "
Francesco Poli wrote:
yep, sorry ;-)
Please, do not reply to me directly Cc:ing the list, as I didn't ask it.
Better reply to the list only, instead: I'm a subscriber and would
rather not receive replies twice.
Thanks.
[...]
On the contrary! :)
I think you should go on reading this useful docume
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 09:22:32PM -0400, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > > > I reject your attempt to make me decide without extra data.
> > > What extra data do you need?
> >
> > So far we've had apparently-expert opinions in both directions
> > about how this situation would be viewed by courts. I f
> "Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > [...] 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 (along
> > > with statements relying on the US view of "fair use" IIRC).
> > Great. The
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 explain
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
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
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
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 modif
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
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 Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 04:00:46AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > You're claiming, as far as I can tell, that any license that can be twisted
> > in a non-free way is categorically non-free.
>
> No.
>
> http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20050324.html
You can't just say "no".
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:10:24AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I see nothing other than an appeal to a silent majority. Do you really
> > want me to post the lurker song? You're getting awfully close.
> >
> > Anyway, no points
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:10:24AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I see nothing other than an appeal to a silent majority. Do you really
> want me to post the lurker song? You're getting awfully close.
>
> Anyway, no points to answer; my previous mail stands.
Evading Matthew's counterarguments d
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 07:34:15PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> According to http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5293
> there are already at least 10 million works published under a CC
> license.
I'm really suspicious of their numbers. According to
http://people.debian.org/~jgb/debian-count
I see nothing other than an appeal to a silent majority. Do you really
want me to post the lurker song? You're getting awfully close.
Anyway, no points to answer; my previous mail stands.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `'
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 12:43:35AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Compromise opportunity: I would want a pretty unambiguous
> description of when to use anything weaker than the DFSG. At
> least, it should avoid letting any programs which don't
> follow DFSG into main. No-one has posted a good definition
>
I cover the FAQ question in reply to Marco d'Itri. Other questions:
Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote: [...]
> > Well, as a matter of fact, authors always have absolute freedom to
> > choose the license they like for their own works. [...example...]
> Am I (the author) free
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> I suppose you are reading Barak Pearlmutter's DFSG FAQ
> >> (http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), right?
> >yes, it is a faq in debian.org, although in a personal page.
> >Should I not consider that faq?
> You should c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>You should note, Thomas, that Marco is an established troll who takes every
How mature, accusing of trolling somebody who disagrees with you.
But thank you for saying this, it shows that an ad hominem is the best
argument you have.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 08:22:29PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> I suppose you are reading Barak Pearlmutter's DFSG FAQ
> >> (http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), right?
> >yes, it is a faq in debian.org, although in a personal page.
> >Should I not consider
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I suppose you are reading Barak Pearlmutter's DFSG FAQ
>> (http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), right?
>yes, it is a faq in debian.org, although in a personal page.
>Should I not consider that faq?
You should consider it as the opinion of a debian-legal contrib
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 16:59:08 +0200 Thomas wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> >
> > Hi Thomas!
> >
>
> ciao Franceso
Please, do not reply to me directly Cc:ing the list, as I didn't ask it.
Better reply to the list only, instead: I'm a subscriber and would
rather not receive replies twice.
Thanks
Francesco Poli wrote:
Hi Thomas!
ciao Franceso
I suppose you are reading Barak Pearlmutter's DFSG FAQ
(http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), right?
yes, it is a faq in debian.org, although in a personal page.
Should I not consider that faq?
[...]
The main point you seem to miss is that DFS
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 12:16:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> No we don't. There's huge chunks of X under licenses like that without
>> us having obtained any clarification.
>
> I doubt the accuracy of that, but regardless, if there are, it's just
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 12:16:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:26:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> >> The same phrase appears in several other licenses that we consider free.
> >> Your argument appears to be that w
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:26:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> The same phrase appears in several other licenses that we consider free.
>> Your argument appears to be that we should consider those licenses
>> non-free because the words can be inter
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:26:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This not a theory. This is practical experience. This is why pine is
> > not free.
>
> The awkward phrase in the pine license is:
>
> "Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribu
On 31 Mar 2005 00:56:10 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The point -at least for me- is to figure out if others agree.
> > Some of the main opinion against this point are that dfsg are
> > directed to software and cc are not.
>
> I'm not familiar with Italian, but at lea
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:22:13 +0200 Thomas wrote:
>
> > I've been recently contacted by two people belonging to Creative
> > Commons Italy staff, regarding your draft summary.
>
> Hi, I am one of those guys, thomas of curse
Hi Thomas!
>
> > We began a three-party discussion (in italian): I was
"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [...] 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 (along
> > with statements relying on the US view of "fair use" IIRC).
> Great. The latter case is
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I'm following this thread -and some other- but is not so easy to
> >understand it completely - right now I am studying the desert island
> >test...;-)
> There are better ways to spend you time, these tests are not based on
> th
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The existence of one idiot implies the existence of N broken copies,
> where all of them copied the file written by the idiot. License errors
> propagate like flies. It eliminates the possibility of us being able
> to say "anything under this license is
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This not a theory. This is practical experience. This is why pine is
> not free.
The awkward phrase in the pine license is:
"Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
documentation for any purpose and without fee to the Uni
> "Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, if we treat this as a freedom issue in situations where the
> > licensor has created a new version that does not include the
> > comment/bounding box and/or where we have reason to believe the
> > licensor feels that this is in fact part of th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm following this thread -and some other- but is not so easy to
>understand it completely - right now I am studying the desert island
>test...;-)
There are better ways to spend you time, these tests are not based on
the DFSG and so are not much relevant.
>I don't know
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Then we should still ask CC to make reasonable adjustments to
>stop encouraging them, or to actually enforce the trademark and
>stop people describing these licences as CC-by (or whatever)
>instead of leaving it to us to mop up. It's not that hard to
Sure, I see nothing
Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point -at least for me- is to figure out if others agree.
> Some of the main opinion against this point are that dfsg are directed
> to software and cc are not.
I'm not familiar with Italian, but at least in some other languages,
this opinion has been motiv
I've been recently contacted by two people belonging to Creative Commons
Italy staff, regarding your draft summary.
Hi, I am one of those guys, thomas of curse
We began a three-party discussion (in italian): I was hoping to talk
about debian-legal's proposed license fixes, but, so far, our
convers
"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, if we treat this as a freedom issue in situations where the
> licensor has created a new version that does not include the
> comment/bounding box and/or where we have reason to believe the
> licensor feels that this is in fact part of the license,
> If the licensor includes that term in the copyright conditions for
> the work, I don't think that CC's opinion matters much, unless they
> are granting an unrestricted royalty-free trademark
> permission. After all, the copyright licensor could include
> something really daft like "you must not
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >No, but if it's included in the licence by a licensor who considers it
> >part of the licence, clearly your "we all know" is false.
> Then this licensor is using a different license which is not a CC
> license. It's not that hard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>No, but if it's included in the licence by a licensor who considers it
>part of the licence, clearly your "we all know" is false.
Then this licensor is using a different license which is not a CC
license. It's not that hard.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [CC trademark clause]
> It is explicit in the source of the page and it's explicit (although
> not necessary universally unambiguous) in the graphical visualization
> that 99+% of people reading the page see. CC has explained clearly
> their position and
"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Is ALLCAPS "NOT A PART OF THE LICENSE",
> > ...in an HTML comment...
> Only because it's graphically separated, by color and inside a box,
> when the HTML is rendered. The HTML comment is trying to make explicit
> in the source what is already expl
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 02:09:58PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 03:31:01PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > >
> > > > Now, agreed, stuff that's not part of the license shouldn't matter.
> > > > But it's really, really difficult to tell that the overreaching
> > > >
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 03:31:01PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
I don't think it is quite good enough that Creative Commons
understands what they mean, if the users of the license don't
understand as well.
It is explicit in the source of the page and it's explicit (although
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 09:33:11PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 12:50:15PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > > I think it also helps to remember
> > > that this isn't the same as source code and the the nature of bugs
> > > is somewhat different. It's, for lack of a
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 03:31:01PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> >
> > > Now, agreed, stuff that's not part of the license shouldn't matter.
> > > But it's really, really difficult to tell that the overreaching
> > > language in the trademark restrictions is ignorable. I mean, it's
> > > RIG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Can Creative Commons
>fix the confusing parts of the license?
No, because no matter how much some people pretend to be confused, the
trademark stuff is still *not part of the license*!
Now, a more useful question would be "can creative commons fix the
license web page?",
doug jensen wrote:
I cannot see anything indicating that the "Creative Commons"
trademark paragraph is not part of the license, when looking at it in
a text browser[1]. In a graphical browser the entire section quoted
above has a box around it. My first thought was that that section was
being hi
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 03:31:01PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
>
> > Now, agreed, stuff that's not part of the license shouldn't matter.
> > But it's really, really difficult to tell that the overreaching
> > language in the trademark restrictions is ignorable. I mean, it's
> > RIGHT THERE, on
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 12:50:15PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > > My wife says about debian-legal, "It sounds like you are the white
> > > hat hackers of Free Software licenses. You find the security holes
> > > in the licenses before the bad guys do." I thought that this was a
> > > pretty
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 12:50:15PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > My wife says about debian-legal, "It sounds like you are the white
> > hat hackers of Free Software licenses. You find the security holes
> > in the licenses before the bad guys do." I thought that this was a
> > pretty good analo
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 12:30:20PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > It is entirely possible that some licensor could go to court and say
> > "I used the CC licenses in the belief that this was prohibited, and
> > with the intent to prohibit it". There is nothing to use in defence
> > against this.
Henri Sivonen wrote:
> You do not have to provide a copy of the Work or the Derivative Work to
> everyone, but when you do provide a copy to someone, you must not take
> measures the circumvention of which would be both illegal in the
> supported jurisdictions and required for exercising the rights
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:01:55 -0500 Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 17:27 -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
[...]
> > Who is organizing discussions with the CC folks?
>
> That would be me.
>
> > I've actually gone
> > over an earlier draft of this text with a representative of CC and
>
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 02:13:46 +0100 Lewis Jardine wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:27:57 -0500 Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> >
> > [anti-DRM clause]
> >
> >>In terms of suggesting a textual fix, how about:
> >>
> >> You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 05:27:57PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
>
> > In general we should distinguish the types of problems we have with
> > the license and separate them into a few categories:
> >
> > - Real limitations on freedom that seem to by by design;
> > - Wording that says somet
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 05:27:57PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> In general we should distinguish the types of problems we have with
> the license and separate them into a few categories:
>
> - Real limitations on freedom that seem to by by design;
> - Wording that says something other than
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In general we should distinguish the types of problems we have with
>the license and separate them into a few categories:
Good work. Thank you for trying to add some sanity.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
> > There are two areas where I think the write-up is a little more
> > harsh/extreme than it should be (this is a critique that has been
> > passed to me through SPI's lawyer and others who have looked at an
> > earlier draft).
>
> I'm surprised by this. If, in the future, you review a document
> On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 17:27 -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > I've actually gone over an earlier draft of this text with a
> > representative of CC and have been having conversations on and off
> > about potential fixes to the licenses. I'd love to have some part
> > in the discussions.
>
> I'd
> [I am continually amazed by the amount of effort that people will
> exert to avoid fixing bugs, even when that effort exceeds the amount
> required to fix the bug]
Sure. :) I absolutely agree that everything here should be fixed. I'm
just not sure I agree that everything in the critique is a fr
On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 17:27 -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> I apologize to be jumping in this at such a late stage. :)
The more, the merrier. But sooner is always better than later.
> Evan thanks so much for the summary. The additions in the last round
> are all steps in the right direction IMHO
[I am continually amazed by the amount of effort that people will
exert to avoid fixing bugs, even when that effort exceeds the amount
required to fix the bug]
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 05:27:57PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> There are two areas where I think the write-up is a little more
> harsh
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:27:57 -0500 Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
[anti-DRM clause]
In terms of suggesting a textual fix, how about:
You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures
that control access o
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:27:57 -0500 Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
[anti-DRM clause]
> In terms of suggesting a textual fix, how about:
>
> You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
> publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures
> that control access or use o
I apologize to be jumping in this at such a late stage. :)
> Hi, everyone. At long last, I've made some final revisions to the draft
> summary of the Creative Commons 2.0 licenses. The main changes have
> been:
>
> * Additional phrasing changes due to MJ Ray
> * Additional phrasing
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:45:38 + Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
> > That's true. However, for a work to be DFSG-free, source code must
> > be supplied.
>
> Sure. But that doesn't mean that the *license* has to require it.
>
> For a work to be free, i
Scripsit Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 12:21 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> I think it is in the spirit of the Creative Commons licenses not to
>> require a transparent copy for editing.
> That's true. However, for a work to be DFSG-free, source code must be
> suppl
On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 12:21 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> I think it is in the spirit of the Creative Commons licenses not to
> require a transparent copy for editing.
That's true. However, for a work to be DFSG-free, source code must be
supplied.
> Therefore, I think it would be wrong to "fix
On Sat, 2005-19-03 at 23:18 +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
> publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological
> measures *that prevent the recipient from exercising the rights
> granted t
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:28:24PM -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Hi, everyone. At long last, I've made some final revisions to the draft
> summary of the Creative Commons 2.0 licenses. The main changes have
> been:
Thanks for doing this. I read it carefully and it's a very nice document.
I thin
Hello everybody :-)
I won't interfere long here since I don't normaly post on this list and
legal issues are not my strong point anyway (fortunately your here).
As both a Debian-Ubuntu and Creative Commons (CC) supporter, I really
hope that what you're doing here will work !
I just wanted to me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
With the exception of the proposed fix for the DRM language (my problems
with it have been pointed out by others), I support this summary and
strongly encourage Creative Commons to resolve these issues.
Subject: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0
On Mar 20, 2005, at 00:58, Per Eric Rosén wrote:
Could it be like this: if you give someone the work in a form (not
preferred for editing|not allowing you to exec your rights in this
licence), you shall also give them the unrestricted work, or a written
offer valid for at least 3 years? I mean; isn
Scripsit Per Eric Rosén <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> IANDD, but:
Don't worry about that. Much of the grunt work on debian-legal has
always been done by non-DD's.
> Could it be like this: if you give someone the work in a form (not
> preferred for editing|not allowing you to exec your rights in this
> l
Scripsit Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, 2005-19-03 at 21:07 +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> I'm not happy about this replacement either. It seems to say that if I
>> distribute the Work on a LAN behind a firewall I must also distribute
>> the Work once again to the same recipient, b
IANDD, but:
Could it be like this: if you give someone the work in a form (not
preferred for editing|not allowing you to exec your rights in this
licence), you shall also give them the unrestricted work, or a written
offer valid for at least 3 years? I mean; isn't this very analogous to the
situat
On Sat, 2005-19-03 at 21:07 +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I'm not happy about this replacement either. It seems to say that if I
> distribute the Work on a LAN behind a firewall I must also distribute
> the Work once again to the same recipient, but this time on a
> non-firewalled LAN.
I think
Scripsit Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 4. **Allow distribution of rights-restricted copies of works if
>unrestricted copies are also made available.** The following
>modified version of the anti-DRM clause in section 4a may be a
>good starting point.
>
> You may not distri
On Mar 18, 2005, at 21:28, Evan Prodromou wrote:
Hi, everyone. At long last, I've made some final revisions to the draft
summary of the Creative Commons 2.0 licenses.
Thank you for doing this. Now that OOo Authors and The Mozilla
Foundation (for developer.mozilla.org at least) have chosen the CC
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:28:24 -0500 Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Hi, everyone. At long last, I've made some final revisions to the
> draft summary of the Creative Commons 2.0 licenses.
Great! :)
> The main changes
> have been:
>
> * Additional phrasing changes due to MJ Ray
> * Addition
Hi, everyone. At long last, I've made some final revisions to the draft
summary of the Creative Commons 2.0 licenses. The main changes have
been:
* Additional phrasing changes due to MJ Ray
* Additional phrasing changes due to Francesco Poli
* Clear textual recommendations for
89 matches
Mail list logo
