cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

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

From: Anthony <osm AT inbox.org>
To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>, kctucker AT gmail.com
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Attribution: accurate credit should not be forbidden
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 12:47:59 -0400

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.

Re: [cc-licenses] Attribution: accurate credit should not be forbidden, Kim Tucker, 05/02/2013
- Re: [cc-licenses] Attribution: accurate credit should not be forbidden, drew Roberts, 05/02/2013
  - Re: [cc-licenses] Attribution: accurate credit should not be forbidden, Kim Tucker, 05/03/2013
- Re: [cc-licenses] Attribution: accurate credit should not be forbidden, Anthony, 05/02/2013
  - Re: [cc-licenses] Attribution: accurate credit should not be forbidden, Anthony, 05/02/2013