cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses
List archive
Re: [cc-licenses] Color-coding, was Re: Getting to Version 3.0
- From: "Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>
- To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Color-coding, was Re: Getting to Version 3.0
- Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 19:55:09 -0400 (EDT)
if you took ROYGBIV, flipped it around
to reverse the order, then you'd have
something that is mneumonically memorable
*and* maps so that copyleft is physically
left of copyright.
VIBGYOR
Violet = Public Domain
Indigo = Attribution
Green = Copyleft
Yellow = NonCommercial
Orange = NoDerivative
Red = All Rights Reserved
EULA's and the like can be infrared
You could have vertical color bars
as the logo, and it would map the terms
to their context in several different ways.
I'm one license short to fill up the color
bars, though. Don't know what to put for blue.
Greg
> "Free" licenses have cool colors (say):
>
> GREEN = free / non-copyleft
> BLUE = free copyleft
>
> While "non-free" licenses have hot colors:
>
> YELLOW = Non-Commercial
> ORANGE = Non-derivative (& NC-ND)
> RED = More restrictive licenses (e.g. EULAs)
--
Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP laws
http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/
-
[cc-licenses] Getting to Version 3.0,
Mia Garlick, 05/17/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Getting to Version 3.0, Mia Garlick, 05/17/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Getting to Version 3.0, Terry Hancock, 05/17/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Getting to Version 3.0, Evan Prodromou, 05/18/2006
-
[cc-licenses] Color-coding, was Re: Getting to Version 3.0,
Terry Hancock, 05/18/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Color-coding, was Re: Getting to Version 3.0, drew Roberts, 05/18/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Color-coding, was Re: Getting to Version 3.0, Mike Linksvayer, 05/18/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Color-coding, was Re: Getting to Version 3.0, Evan Prodromou, 05/18/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Color-coding, was Re: Getting to Version 3.0, Greg London, 05/18/2006
-
[cc-licenses] Founders as a module? was Re: Getting to Version 3.0,
Terry Hancock, 05/18/2006
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Founders as a module? was Re: Getting to Version 3.0,
drew Roberts, 05/18/2006
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Founders as a module? was Re: Getting to Version 3.0,
Terry Hancock, 05/18/2006
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Founders as a module? was Re: Getting to Version 3.0,
drew Roberts, 05/18/2006
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Founders as a module? was Re: Getting to Version 3.0,
Terry Hancock, 05/18/2006
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Founders as a module? was Re: Getting to Version 3.0,
drew Roberts, 05/18/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Founders as a module? was Re: Getting to Version 3.0, Terry Hancock, 05/19/2006
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Founders as a module? was Re: Getting to Version 3.0,
drew Roberts, 05/18/2006
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Founders as a module? was Re: Getting to Version 3.0,
Terry Hancock, 05/18/2006
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Founders as a module? was Re: Getting to Version 3.0,
drew Roberts, 05/18/2006
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Founders as a module? was Re: Getting to Version 3.0,
Terry Hancock, 05/18/2006
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Founders as a module? was Re: Getting to Version 3.0,
Mike Linksvayer, 05/18/2006
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Founders as a module? was Re: Getting to Version 3.0,
Terry Hancock, 05/18/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Founders as a module? was Re: Getting to Version 3.0, Terry Hancock, 05/18/2006
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Founders as a module? was Re: Getting to Version 3.0,
Terry Hancock, 05/18/2006
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Founders as a module? was Re: Getting to Version 3.0,
drew Roberts, 05/18/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.