Re: FAQ copyright? (I suggest Creative Commons' licenses)

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Wed Dec 24 2003 - 19:45:17 CST

|> (I could be easily convinced that we could drop either or both the
|> Non-Commercial or No Derivative Works limitations and retain only the
|> Attribution requirement. And we can always start with the more
|> restrictive form and relax the conditions later on [it's harder to go the
|> other way around.])

"Alan Dechert" <> wrote:
|We had a long and strenous discussion about all this back in August.
|Generally speaking, Arthur, Doug and David Mertz have some strong
|feelings/opinions about all this. I dropped out of the debate.

I'm fine with Creative Commons for documentation-type stuff. Public
domain is probably even better, and I think it was Arthur who pushed
this point (maybe not though--it's somewhere in the archives).

For code, we agreed on the almost-GPL license EVMPL... and I *do* feel
strongly about that. But for the FAQ, I have no strong opinion (unless,
of course, someone wanted a proprietary copyrighted-do-not-copy thing;
which no one does). I'm happy to leave this decision to someone (like
Karl) who has worked on the FAQ.

Yours, David...

mertz@  | The specter of free information is haunting the `Net!  All the
gnosis  | powers of IP- and crypto-tyranny have entered into an unholy
.cx     | alliance...ideas have nothing to lose but their chains.  Unite
        | against "intellectual property" and anti-privacy regimes!
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
Received on Wed Dec 31 23:17:17 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 31 2003 - 23:17:19 CST