[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Freepats

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

Ryan Underwood, <nemesis@icequake.net>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: