Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
- To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
- From: MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop>
- Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 12:29:00 +0100 (BST)
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20060923114750.7C423F6565@nail.towers.org.uk>
- References: <1155223573.6162.198.camel@zhora.1481ruerachel.net> <20060820090613.GB18213@mauritius.dodds.net> <20060821215357.1181b9f2.frx@firenze.linux.it> <20060822173708.GA16775@mauritius.dodds.net> <20060823232748.48f96dea.frx@firenze.linux.it> <20060824191018.13F82F6568@nail.towers.org.uk> <ed5ftu$uu1$2@sea.gmane.org> <20060831103708.04B45F6C83@nail.towers.org.uk> <[🔎] eemukf$tfe$2@sea.gmane.org>
Nathanael Nerode <neroden@fastmail.fm>
> > 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?
Thanks,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: