> If you look at what is listed for Attribution it says: > > You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or > licensor.
For attribution on the web a link back is usually considered appropriate. In print media, often its a byline of some kind. -Josh On 3/7/06, Pete Prodoehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andreas Haugstrup wrote: > > On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:49:42 +0100, Pete Prodoehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Until then, if you release your work under a CC license, you might as > >> well outline what you think it means, as I've attempted to do here: > >> > >> http://tinkernet.org/usage/ > >> > >> It's the lightnet thing to do. :) > > > > That aproach devaluates the whole concept of Creative Commons. The goal > > with CC is (among other things) to have a shared set of licenses, making > > it *easy* for people to see exactly what they can and cannot do with your > > content. If everyone went and wrote up a usage page saying "this is CC > > licensed, but it's CC licensed under this interpretation I've written > > below" we would be back to square one. > > > > Use a CC license if you agree with what the license says. If not don't say > > "CC licensed... in my interpretation", just write up guidelines without > > mentioning Creative Commons. > > > If you look at what is listed for Attribution it says: > > You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or > licensor. > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ > > But the problem is, almost no author/licensor specify anything in this > regard. So how are you supposed to do what they ask? That's why I > outlined the attribution part. > > As for the commercial, bit. Won't it ultimately be up to a court to > decide what something like "commercial use" is? I was attempting to > define what I consider "commercial use" so that you would know if I had > a problem with what you planned to do. > > Even the CC folks don't seem to be sure what NonCommercial means: > > "So the topic of what constitutes a "noncommercial use" under those > Creative Commons licenses that contain the NonCommercial license option > has been a perennial source of debate over the years" > > http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5752 > > I think I worded it badly when I wrote: "you might as well outline what > you think it means" in this case. I was not trying to redefine what a CC > license is, only clarify what *I* think it means. > > > Pete > > -- > http://tinkernet.org/ > videoblog for the future... > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
