On 4/25/10, Ian Trudel <ian.trudel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Bert,
>
> The reason that I have mentioned CC license is because this is
> something graphic designers understand and a lot of artworks is
> available under CC.

"content creators" know CC,

>They might not be so familiar with MIT license.

The MIT license is for software code.

> CC-BY seems alright to me but it's a good idea to ask SFC.
Yes.

The link
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

-- Hannes


> 2010/4/25 Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>:
>> On 25.04.2010, at 06:02, Ian Trudel wrote:
>>>
>>> Would Creative Common an acceptable license? Which other licenses
>>> would be acceptable? (Board members, what do you think?)
>>
>> Hard to answer, and I wouldn't know whom to ask. SFC maybe? The MIT
>> license makes no restrictions whatsoever. CC means "some rights reserved".
>>
>> All CC-NC variants are out obviously. CC-ND is impractical, we need to be
>> able to modify stuff. And CC-SA does require sharing - which is not a bad
>> thing in itself, but MIT does not require it.
>>
>> The only one I could imagine for inclusion in Squeak would be CC-BY, which
>> only requires attribution, but has no further strings attached. But IANAL
>> and every license we add complicates things. It would be better if it was
>> simply given under MIT.
>>
>> - Bert -
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://mecenia.blogspot.com/
>
>