[cc-licenses] NonDerivative NonCommercial Licenses
jonathon.blake at gmail.com
Tue Mar 28 16:59:33 EST 2006
> The grounds are very simple:
> what you call (ii) "Free speech, not free beer" above (value added Linux vendors), you associate with a CC-NC-SA license.
> The problem is that Anything that any vendor does with linux must remain GNU-GPL.
I chose a bad example there.
What I was trying to do there, was identify a group that offers Libre
software, but not Free software.
> restrictions to be called Free. End of story.
This is the Debian defintion of "Free" as contrasted to the Microsoft
defintion of "Free".
> It's all within the author's right to do so, but it isn't FLOSS. And while I would guess
I didn't claim the Bible study program was FLOSS.
> So, no license can completely enforce Mathew 10:8 in all possibilities around the original work.
I've seen that conclusion before, using a different chain of reasoning.
> > CC-SA-NC Licence documentation: Probably 2 500 hours of
> 2,500 hours or 500 hours? some kind of typo there.
Not a typo. [The space is the group separator. (Enshrined in the
> So, I think the basic idea of copyleft still applies as being the best for gift economy projects.
Ethical conduct is a vice.
Corrupt conduct is a virtue.
Motto of Nacarima.
More information about the cc-licenses