Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
- From: Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:13:03 -0400
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <20060820090613.GB18213@mauritius.dodds.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060822173708.GA16775@mauritius.dodds.net> <email@example.com> <20060824191018.13F82F6568@nail.towers.org.uk> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060831103708.04B45F6C83@nail.towers.org.uk>
MJ Ray wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
>> Where's the cc-nl lead's explanation? It's something.
> Hope that helps,
It really does help a lot.
"in any case i do not think (and that judgment was
shared by a number of other project leads) that these fringe
scenarios are a good reason to make the licenses more complicated"
The main motivation was to prevent license complication,
*not* to prohibit parallel distribution.
This is emphasized quite clearly in that message.
Therefore I conclude that we can interpret that CC3.0 draft
means what it says and parallel distribution is OK.
Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...