On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 10:30:14PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > Ryan Underwood <nemesis-lists@icequake.net> writes: > > > I don't seem to be getting mail from the BTS on this bug. Anyway, it > > seemed to me that the Creative Commons licenses would be more > > appropriate since they were specifically designed to cover media: > > > > This one is just a MIT-ish license: > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ > > You may be interested in: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200404/msg00031.html > > which is the summary I wrote describing why d-l decided the cc-by isn't > free. > > > This one is a LGPL-like license without going into details of linking. > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/ > > This seems to have the same problems as the cc-by license. Yeah, both of them I chose "Require Attribution" on. If neither of those is suitable, then the BSD/MIT or a public domain declaration is appropriate in my opinion. If we are intending these patches to be usable for commercial entities, we really can't use a *GPL or ShareAlike license. -- Ryan Underwood, <nemesis@icequake.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature