On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:51:31 -0400 Joe Smith wrote:
[...]
> The hope is that there would be few enough CC
> licenses that most people would know the basic terms well enough that they
> never really need to look them up, but people do need internet access to
> look them up the first time, as wel
"Ben Finney" wrote:
I'd hardly call that “the whole point” of the licenses; if anything,
it's a property of how they're used.
Fair enough
It's also a pretty poor practice: it makes access to that specific
document online a pre-condition to knowing the license terms in the
work at any given
"Joe Smith" writes:
> The legal code is long and complex, because it can be. The whole point
> of the Creative Commons
> Licenses is that the license text is not included with the work, but
> instead just the license URL is included.
I'd hardly call that “the whole point” of the licenses; if any
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Joe Smith wrote:
>
> Thus the CC0 licence takes only one line to apply to a work.
>
> #makes this work avilable under CC0
> (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)
The CC folks prefer that you use this actually:
To the extent possible under law, has
Ben Finney wrote
Yes. If anything, the length of verbiage that Creative Commons feels
necessary to effectively place a work in the public domain, under the
current copyright regime, only supports the idea that it's
significantly *more* complicated than working with copyright and using
an appropr
Francesco Poli writes:
> A little comment: these "public domain declarations" are getting
> longer and longer, more and more complicated, less and less
> practical to adopt.
>
> I think that just adopting the Expat/MIT license
> (http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt) is a much simpler choice an
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:39:19 +0900 Paul Wise wrote:
[...]
> Since it is meant as a more universal public domain dedication, I'd
> expect it would meet the DFSG.
I read it through and I failed to spot any freeness issue.
Hence, I think a work associated with the CC0 declaration/license
complies w
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> Here is a copy/paste of the the legal code for CC0 1.0 Universal for
> -legal regulars to dissect:
I should also point out the human-readable summary:
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
CC0 1.0 Universal
No Copyright
This li
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Maximilian Gaß wrote:
> with the recent release of CC0 by Creative Commons, I wonder what your
> opinions on it are about using this for software that might be included in
> Debian?
Since it is meant as a more universal public domain dedication, I'd
expect it woul
Hello d-legal,
with the recent release of CC0 by Creative Commons, I wonder what your
opinions on it are about using this for software that might be included in
Debian?
Regards,
Max
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
10 matches
Mail list logo
