On 21/10/16 13:47, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
Any license that divides the world into groups of "these people may see this work,
but those other people may not"
That doesn't even sound like the job for a license, but for a privacy policy /
terms of use.
Licenses are terms of use!
> Any license that divides the world into groups of "these people may see this
> work, but those other people may not"
That doesn't even sound like the job for a license, but for a privacy policy /
terms of use.
___
License-discuss mailing list
I'm not going to address whether or not this list is appropriate to discuss CC
licenses, but I will offer a brief reply. The short version is: these are not
the licenses you're looking for.
Open source licenses always let me download a program to give to my neighbor.
Similarly, Creative
e Discuss
<license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Creative Commons vs private content
Maarten Zeinstra from Creative Commons Netherlands here.
You would have no problems limiting access to those files. However you have to
Maarten Zeinstra from Creative Commons Netherlands here.
You would have no problems limiting access to those files. However you have to
understand that you cannot limit reuse of those files if they are licensed
using a Creative Commons license. If a member of your community decided to
download
> Are the two concepts above in conflict with the CC license? Is a different
> license required for that specific content - or some rider attached to the
> general license?
One is copyright, one is privacy/visibility. Not even related, so there should
be no conflict.
Greetings from New Zealand,
I've struggled somewhat to find a forum in which to discuss matters
relating to Creative Commons, so I hope this isn't Off-topic here. (If it
is, feel free to redirect me!)
We are redeveloping a website (for a national permaculture organisation)
with user-contributed
7 matches
Mail list logo
