Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
- From: Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:06:49 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060820090613.GB18213@mauritius.dodds.net> <email@example.com> <20060822173708.GA16775@mauritius.dodds.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060824191018.13F82F6568@nail.towers.org.uk> <email@example.com> <20060831103708.04B45F6C83@nail.towers.org.uk> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060923114750.7C423F6565@nail.towers.org.uk> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060926160656.7DE6DF65A8@nail.towers.org.uk>
MJ Ray wrote:
> and maybe some other bits too (CC3.0 is a long licence). The Scotland
> one is far briefer, especially when viewed in context, and it has the
> apparently crucial difference of including 'effect or intent'.
I'm actually curious as to why this is apparently crucial; I haven't seen a
good explanation of this. It seems to be a better formulation (applies to
cases where technology effectively restricts rights by accident, and to
cases where it was intended to restrict rights but doesn't), but I'm not
sure why it's crucial.
Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...