Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Sandra Lippiatt <sllippiatt AT gmail.com>]

It is standard academic publishing practice to indicate the source of material you are copying.

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Francesco Poli <invernomuto AT paranoici.org> wrote:

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 22:03:28 -0700 Gregory Maxwell wrote:

[...]

> The
> result is legally ambiguous: what happens when works from multiple
> sources are combined?  Do we end up having to maintain a long list of
> URLs with every work and print them along with them?

[...]

While I share the dislike for excessive attribution requirements,
I don't feel that this specific requirement to preserve URIs is non-free
in itself... just inadvisable.

>
> In the area of free software, licenses with advertising clauses are
> not tolerated and are considered unfree (e.g. BSD with advertising
> clause).

This is not correct: 4-clause-BSD-licensed works are generally
considered Free Software, although the 4th clause of that license is
often considered obnoxious:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD


--
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community