[cc-licenses] Attribution: accurate credit should not be forbidden

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Thu May 2 12:47:59 EDT 2013


On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:

> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Kim Tucker <kctucker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Libre Puro Licence is similar in the sense that it too does not
>> require attribution and is also copyleft.
>
>
> I guess you could call it copyleft if you trust whoever defines "the Libre
> Knowledge Definition" to always properly define copyleft.
>
> I don't.
>

Also, the really drastic difference between SA-1.0 and LPL is that LPL lets
you add restrictions, so long as they're restrictions which are signed off
by the people who define the LKD.  SA-1.0 doesn't allow you to add
restrictions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20130502/617711a4/attachment.html 


More information about the cc-licenses mailing list