Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
"Benj. Mako Hill" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> <quote who=3D"MJ Ray" date=3D"2005-03-30 22:15:15 +0000">
> > [...] I'm not sure
> > about the situation when they just link to the ambiguous page
> > which has had clarifications issued in obscure places by CC (along
> > with statements relying on the US view of "fair use" IIRC).
> Great. The latter case is by far the most common. If you go to the CC
> website, it instructs people to license their works through
> linking. That's why they don't provide a copy suitable for inclusion
> with a work.
Do they even recommend licensing non-software works through
> > I reject your attempt to make me decide without extra data.
> What extra data do you need?
So far we've had apparently-expert opinions in both directions
about how this situation would be viewed by courts. I feel I
need some reason to value a particular expert above others. It
may be that I've missed some relevant post in the volume.
Then again, that's unnecessary work if CC follow WCAG better.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct