Concerns: CC-BY and Debian
dcarrera at math.umd.edu
Fri Mar 11 11:38:55 EST 2005
Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
> The invariant sections are optional, so you could simply require
> documents to contain no invariant sections.
And that would be free. But it would no longer be the FDL :-)
But in any event, I don't understand why we're talking about the FDL to
begin with. The FDL is a nice license, but it's not one under
consideration for me for reasons that have nothing to do with Debian.
> Maybe your best bet is just to use a modified CC-BY, and simply call it
> something else.
I don't like making new licenses. I don't want to add to the license
pollution. Also, one of the good things of the CC-BY is that it can be
combined with all the existing CC work. If I made a license that was
almost like the CC-BY, but not quite the same, I would lose that
Therefore, I think I'll go for a dual licensing system. Please see my
other post. Tell me what you think. I'm planning on a dual GPL / CC-BY
strategy. My other post also lists my reasons.
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
More information about the cc-licenses