[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 -- It's Happening & With BY-SA CompatibilityLanguageToo
zotz at 100jamz.com
Tue Feb 13 20:50:49 EST 2007
On Tuesday 13 February 2007 08:44 pm, James Grimmelmann wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 February 2007 07:56 pm, Jonathon Blake wrote:
> >> On 2/13/07, tomislav medak wrote:
> >>> first reason would be: how do you define 'free'?, or rather 'freedoms',
> >>> or 'free enough' to be called that. for instance, freedom to share
> >>> licensed works is given by all standard CC licenses and it is a
> >>> freedom.
> >> First, get rid of CC as a brand name. Keep the name for the
> >> organization, if you so desire.
> >> Debian Legal has a set of four definitions,and three tests that can be
> >> used to determine whether or not something is "free". Anything which
> >> passes all of those criteria is "free". Call that the _Free Content
> >> Licence_.
> >> The BY and BY-SA variants can be called the _Free Authors Licence_.
> >> BY-NC-ND can be relabelled as _The Usage is Banned Licence_
> > Not so sure this description fits. You can "use" such a book to read or
> > as a door stop... ?
> > A bit off topic here... Is it legal for a for profit entity to download
> > NC documents off of web sites?
> Under step 1 of the draft NC guidelines, no.
Care to give a step by step explanation of where copyright would be violated?
In a download situation, who makes the copy? The person with the web server,
or the person with the web browser? Both?
all the best,
(da idea man)
More information about the cc-licenses