On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 04:24:35AM -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote: > The license doesn't say that the name must be prominent. It says that it > must be "at least as prominent" as other credit. Last week I asked the > cc-community list if I could just have an appendix titled "contributors" > and put everyone's names on it. They said that should be fine. Random shots on a mailing list, even from CC, don't count for anything. We need stuff that's legally binding on the copyright holders, who are not CC. They cannot say "this is fine" because the license text doesn't say it, and they aren't the copyright holder so their opinion about intent isn't relevant. > The third justification refers to "the trademark notice on the license's > website where it is not obvious if this notice is part of the license." > > I'm pretty sure the trademarrk notice is not part of the license. So were we (expecting this to be a trivial bug which would be rapidly corrected), but when they were asked we got a non-response and it hasn't been fixed *years later*, which made us rather less sure. > What > would you suggest the CC team do to make this sufficiently obvious? I will > relay your suggestion to the CC team. They're a nice bunch. Who knows? > They might just make the alteration. We did, ages ago. They didn't. That's a very, very bad sign. It means they're either completely incompetent, or they have some reason for keeping it broken that we don't know about. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature