Re: CC-BY license.
Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@math.umd.edu> wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > 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.
> Alright, let me have a go at this one. It looks like the simplest thing to
> fix. If I hit a brick wall, I won't bother bringing up the other issue.
For an example of one time people asked and we got a reply, see
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2004-June/000934.html
I dislike their apparent stance of: if that combination is
overruled by fair use, they can rely on the courts instead
of getting us to clarify it.
> What should CC do to make the note sufficiently obvious?
A header saying "Creative Commons Trademark License - Not Part of the
Copyirght License" would cover it, I think.
However, this requires a positive action from them, so see
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2004-June/000922.html
Their position may have changed in the last seven or so months.
I've not been following their project much.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks.
Reply to: