Re: New presentation on Ruby

On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 01:54:51PM +0900, Gregory Brown wrote:
On 3/30/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:52:21AM +0900, Gregory Brown wrote:

Standard licensing choices are better. Ellie, is this what you're
looking
for?
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Most likely, one would choose the attribution/share-alike, rather than
simply a pure attribution license. The difference is that with a share-
alike license, the terms (in this case, attribution) are inherited by
all derivative works, while with the "pure" attribution license that is
not necessarily the case. The link:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

If you read up in the thread I already recommended this. I was just
offering an alternative to writing your own license if all you want is
attribution and indemnification.

I wasn't referring to writing your own license. The attribution/share-
alike license is a standard CC license, as indicated at the URL I
provided.



I personally had some issues with the by-sa (attribution/share-alike)
license, related to weird prohibitions against technical means of
controlling copying and so on. That was part of the reason that I
eventually created my own license -- one that I pretty much use for
everything I do, as long as it wasn't commissioned by someone with
assignment of copyright stipulated in the conditions of the contract.

Bad idea for community friendly projects. I don't want to learn your
license if there is a standard license I can live with, that other
people will be likely to understand, too.

Good for you.

1. I tend to dual-license whenever anyone really wants it.

2. I choose the license I do specifically because I often don't care to
"live with" other extant licenses. It wasn't a capricious decision. It
was a decision born of frustration. In any case, the license I created
was designed with simplicity in mind -- and if you can get along with
Creative Common license term legal text (byzantine and stilted phrasing)
then you'll have no problem with what I use.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Leon Festinger: "A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell
him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he
questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New presentation on Ruby
    ... simply a pure attribution license. ... "As we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)
  • Re: Proposed license for IETF Contributions
    ... > specification must contain an attribution to the source document, ... > to have all references to the source organizations removed. ... Thanks for looking at the license. ... IETF document. ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: UI design for Tk app--PNGs or GIFs for icons?
    ... I had a good long look at using the icons from this ... The license is the real kicker, ... On first look, it seems to be a standard BSD type license with an attribution requirement (which is sort of what I assumed it would be, if you're using them in commercial apps) and it does explicitly give ...
    (comp.lang.tcl)
  • Re: New presentation on Ruby
    ... > Standard licensing choices are better. ... simply a pure attribution license. ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)