On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Simon Ward wrote:
> alternative term is “reciprocal license”.
"Share Alike license" seems like he correct term since that is in our
current license.
Viral is a weasel word, bellow the belt.
___
legal-talk mailing list
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 12:43:09AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > but while we’re
> > trying to prevent all sides equally
>
> Preventing all sides equally is indeed something we're aiming at, with
> all our hearts ;-)
Yes, thanks for that. I noticed not long after I sent the mail, but
didn’t
Hi,
Simon Ward wrote:
> but while we’re
> trying to prevent all sides equally
Preventing all sides equally is indeed something we're aiming at, with
all our hearts ;-)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
__
I’ve received the mail, answered the poll, and also the preference poll.
In the preference poll, I understand the term “viral license” but ask
that people refrain from using that term: It has the implication that
it is a bad thing - it may be in some peoples’ minds, but while we’re
trying to prev
Apologies in advance if this is fanning the flames on the currently
ongoing license flamewar but I have a (hopefully) innocent query on
the matter.
Last year I asked what was the plan exactly for removing any CC-BY-SA
content left in the database after the now-scheduled changeover:
http://lists.
Hi all,
Here is a personal concern I have with the ODbL implementation plan. I
was going to post it on the wiki, but I thought I want to have comments
from interested parties before I post it. Extra marks for linking to
pre-existing material, because we don't want to rehash the same stuff. :)
