>I've been contacted by people at Creative Commons who'd like to have a
>telephone conference to go over the draft. I think they're open to our
>suggestions, if we can stay focused on particulars. Right now, I think this
>is going to have to happen in late Jan. I'm running behind on a lot of
>t
>I've been contacted by people at Creative Commons who'd like to have a
>telephone conference to go over the draft. I think they're open to our
>suggestions, if we can stay focused on particulars. Right now, I think this
>is going to have to happen in late Jan. I'm running behind on a lot of
>t
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:37:49 -0500 Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this email; I've been on my
> honeymoon in remote places.
I hope you enjoyed your honeymoon! :)
>
> I had a few wording fixes suggested in off-list email by various
> -legal members. In additio
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:37:49 -0500 Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this email; I've been on my
> honeymoon in remote places.
I hope you enjoyed your honeymoon! :)
>
> I had a few wording fixes suggested in off-list email by various
> -legal members. In additio
On Fri, 2004-24-12 at 04:12 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
What is required to move forward on this? Do we *need* to move forward on
this?
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this email; I've been on my honeymoon in remote places.
I had a few wording fixes suggested in off-list emai
On Fri, 2004-24-12 at 04:12 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
What is required to move forward on this? Do we *need* to move forward on
this?
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this email; I've been on my honeymoon in remote places.
I had a few wording fixes suggested in off-list emai
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 17:09:38 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Consider adding the following to the summary under "trademark
> restrictions":
>
> Debian-legal has contacted Creative Commons about this issue, since it
> seems to be trivial to fix, but has unfortunately received no
> response.
>
> P
Consider adding the following to the summary under "trademark restrictions":
Debian-legal has contacted Creative Commons about this issue, since it seems
to be trivial to fix, but has unfortunately received no response.
Perhaps also add the following to the summary:
We would really like to work
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 04:12:32 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote:
> > The summary is also available here:
> >
> > http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.txt
> > http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
>
> I have seen no indication that this summary has become final, despite
> the fact t
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:19:30PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Below is a second version of the summary of the Creative Commons 2.0
> licenses.
[...]
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:17:12PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
[...]
> The summary is also available here:
>
> http://people.debian.org/
Evan Prodromou wrote:
Below is a second version of the summary of the Creative Commons 2.0
licenses.
The summary is also available here:
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.txt
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
~ESP
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:21:17AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> But in evaluating licenses, we have to assume that the Licensor is not
> good, generous, or rational. If we can convince ourselves that the license
> grants the licensees freedom _even_when_ the Licensor is possessed by
> Captain
Sean Kellogg wrote:
reading this Draft Summary really set me off.
I'm sincerely sorry about that. Let me point out that I was originally extremely
hostile to most of the objections posited to the Attribution 1.0 license, most
of which are replicated in this draft summary:
http://li
On 2004-07-22 00:53:18 +0100 Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] Yes, I saw the debate on this
> when it came around, but I was under the impression that someone was working
> with CC to fix the supposed issues... this sounds as if we have given it up.
Summarising the discussions
I've been following this list for almost 3 years now. I've read a lot of
things that have upset me, seen poorly formulated arguments, and lots of
unnecessary flaming. I've only contributed a few times in the past, but
reading this Draft Summary really set me off. Yes, I saw the debate on this
15 matches
Mail list logo
