Re: Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

2007-02-08 Thread Francesco Poli
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:14:27 -0500 Joe Smith wrote: [...] > Well that is just the non-legalese synopsis of the CC-by-2.5. It seems so. > It was not intended to be used as an actual licence text. Definitely *not* intended. > It certainly can be used as a licence text. (Just about anything can >

Re: Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

2007-02-08 Thread Joe Smith
"Matthew Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I've seen a previous review from debian legal about the Creative Commons licences which renders them non free. However, I've just come across a licence claiming to be "C

Re: Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

2007-02-08 Thread Matthew Johnson
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Stephen Gran wrote: All data files, except the songs and the font files mentioned above, are licensed under the following license: Creative Commons Deed Attribution 2.5 That looks fine. cool

Re: Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

2007-02-08 Thread Stephen Gran
This one time, at band camp, Matthew Johnson said: > I've seen a previous review from debian legal about the Creative Commons > licences which renders them non free. However, I've just come across a licence > claiming to be "Creative Commons Deed Attribution 2.5" which is considerably > shorter and

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

2007-02-08 Thread Matthew Johnson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I've seen a previous review from debian legal about the Creative Commons licences which renders them non free. However, I've just come across a licence claiming to be "Creative Commons Deed Attribution 2.5" which is considerably shorter and afaict is