On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 14:01:52 -0400
Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 01:22:46PM +1000, Ruediger Landmann wrote:
So far we've looked at the WTFPL[1], CC0[2], and the so-called GNU
All-Permissive License[3].
We had to regretfully reject the WTFPL on the
On 10/07/2009 03:10 PM, Colby Hoke wrote:
I understand all of that. I'm saying what if someone else cuts it up and
each time he mentions developers, he suddenly says Nazis. (Yeah I went
there, I'm just saying...)
I tend to believe that the people who want to make disgusting and
hateful remixes
RF == Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com writes:
[Offensiveness of WTFPL text]
RF Agreed, this is unfortunate. :)
Might I suggest simply modifying the offensive language? I know license
proliferation is bad, but if the result is legally equivalent and serves
the necessary purpose then I
[removed publican-list from cc]
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:44:54 -0500
Jason L Tibbitts III ti...@math.uh.edu wrote:
[re: WTFPL]
Might I suggest simply modifying the offensive language? I know
license proliferation is bad, but if the result is legally equivalent
and serves the necessary
On 10/08/2009 12:40 AM, Colby Hoke wrote:.
For example, there was a remix of the Truth Happens video that was put
in with some very questionable material. It was offensive. Due to the
copyright (back then we used copyright), we were able to go after that
video and, I assume, have it taken it
