On 01/09/07 16:34, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Drafting and actively promoting licenses that forbid commercial use
> and/or modifications harms the free software movement, rather than
> helping it.
That hasn't always worked out to be the case in my experience. Books
and documentation are a common one
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:08:48 -0600 Terry Hancock wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> >>The CC lawyers are trying to draft a generic, useful and good
> >license.
> >
> > Useful to *whom*?
> > Useful to end users and to the community (and hence to the society)?
> > Or rather useful to authors that are
On 01/09/07 12:13, MJ Ray wrote:
> I've no idea about CC's lawyers. They seemed very uncommunicative and
I'd speculate that they seemed that way on the threads I saw because
they probably were only interested in legal arguments and lots of the
conversation was about the philosophy. So they proba
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 20:14:05 -0500 Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 01:34:53AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> >
> > Hence, I don't know what the lawyers are looking for, but a license
> > that grants too few permissions is not OK to me, even if it does so
> > in a legally perfec
Francesco Poli wrote:
>>The CC lawyers are trying to draft a generic, useful and good license.
>
> Useful to *whom*?
> Useful to end users and to the community (and hence to the society)?
> Or rather useful to authors that are not willing to grant important
> freedoms to recipients of their works?
MJ Ray wrote:
> Jeff Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
>>It seems to me the CC is written with the same kind of mentality and
>>intentions that the DFSG was written. [...]
>
> Hardly. CC fans seem to see nothing wrong with discriminating against any
> field of endeavour, such as commerce or t
6 matches
Mail list logo
