So, is it necessary to keep the image even if there's attribution in the source?
On Friday, May 22, 2009 11:20:07 PM UTC-7, David Huynh wrote: > > Rasmus, > > Thanks for the offer :-) And I agree with you that it's bad form--or bad > karma--for those sites to remove the copyright notice, purposely made > tiny to minimize its intrusiveness. However, I don't think our license > actually legally requires them to keep the copyright notice. > > Perhaps they simply did not think that it was bad form. In which case, a > friendly message might explain to them that even if something is free, > it's good to acknowledge its authors. Or perhaps because it is offered > free, there is even more of a reason to acknowledge its authors. > > Cheers, > > David > > rasmack wrote: > > I just stumbled upon a history project in Denmark using timeline: > > > > http://www.danmarkshistorien.dk/tidslinje/ > > > > I noted that they had removed the copyright notice on the timeline. > > While I admire the purpose of the web page I think this is bad form. > > The question is if it formally violates the license under which they > > use the code. > > > > If anyone has feed-back on this, I'd be happy to incorporate it in an > > angry letter in my native tongue. > > > > Cheers, > > /Rasmus :-) > > > > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIMILE Widgets" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/simile-widgets?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
