cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

[cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses

From: Eric Garner <ejgarner AT yahoo.com>
To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 14:33:09 -0700 (PDT)

Why not break the non-TPA language out of the ND, NC, SA, etc. licenses and make it a completely separate option called "N-TPA" or something like that? This would get the non-TPA language out of the way for Debian's review of all the other licensing options, wouldn't it? It would also make application of the non-TPA language a completely deliberate act on the part of the licensor, thus removing any doubt. Just an idea.
Eric

[cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Eric Garner, 09/23/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Mia Garlick, 09/23/2006
  - Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Terry Hancock, 09/23/2006
    - Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Mia Garlick, 09/23/2006
      - Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Greg London, 09/24/2006
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Terry Hancock, 09/25/2006
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Mia Garlick, 09/25/2006
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, drew Roberts, 09/25/2006
        Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Mia Garlick, 09/25/2006
        Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, drew Roberts, 09/25/2006
        Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Mia Garlick, 09/25/2006