Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003876.html
> The main motivation was to prevent license complication,
> *not* to prohibit parallel distribution.
> This is emphasized quite clearly in that message.
If they wanted to "prevent license complication" why didn't they base
CC3.0 on CC-Scotland's plain and simple English that already allows
parallel distribution, rather than the CC2.5-generic that IIRC doesn't?
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct