RE: website licensing

From: Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp) <"Popkin,>
Date: Thu May 27 2004 - 11:14:05 CDT

Speaking of the Creative Commons license, I notice that there's a new (2.0)
version of the license out, while our FAQ links to the 1.0 license. Should
we switch to 2.0?

And, come to think of it, should the contents of the web site be under CC?

- LP

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-voting-project@afterburner.sonic.net
[mailto:owner-voting-project@afterburner.sonic.net]On Behalf Of David
Mertz
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 8:55 PM
To: voting-project@lists.sonic.net
Subject: Re: [voting-project] website licensing

On May 26, 2004, at 8:37 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
> However, as was suggested a while back, if the email archives
> are indeed public domain, you might want to include a link to
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/

Thanks Joe, for your input. How, specifically, would you change the
blurb attached to the mailing list archive (click to it via the EVM2003
page if you haven't bookmarked the URL). Each archived post has a new
footer, but I could change the wording either proactively or
retroactively to reflect your suggestion.

==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Mon May 31 23:18:09 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:17 CDT