"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <quote who=3D"MJ Ray" date=3D"2005-03-30 22:15:15 +0000"> > > [...] I'm not sure > > about the situation when they just link to the ambiguous page > > which has had clarifications issued in obscure places by CC (along > > with statements relying on the US view of "fair use" IIRC). > Great. The latter case is by far the most common. If you go to the CC > website, it instructs people to license their works through > linking. That's why they don't provide a copy suitable for inclusion > with a work.
Do they even recommend licensing non-software works through linking, JOOI? > > I reject your attempt to make me decide without extra data. > What extra data do you need? So far we've had apparently-expert opinions in both directions about how this situation would be viewed by courts. I feel I need some reason to value a particular expert above others. It may be that I've missed some relevant post in the volume. Then again, that's unnecessary work if CC follow WCAG better. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
