gerv at mozilla.org
Wed May 5 20:07:13 UTC 2004
Matthew P. Barnson wrote:
> After researching it this morning, I think Creative Commons Attribution 1.0
> license fits the bill nicely. Yes, you are going to have attribution bloat
> over time, but that is not a big deal. It represents perhaps one or two
> pages out of the book which people commonly skip over anyway.
But what happens if I copy a chapter into another book (say on
webtools)? And then a year later, someone else takes a chapter from that
(it may not contain any of your content, but he's not to know) for his
Not putting attribution in the license doesn't mean we wouldn't have any
- it just means that if someone wanted to copy a paragraph into
something else, it wouldn't come with baggage.
> This license woud nicely dovetail with my original objectives for the work:
> allow free redistribution and modification, prevent people from "closing"
> it up (preventing others from freely redistributing it), but require that
> author credits and copyright remain intact.
Attribution 1.0 does allow people to close it up - you'd need to add
ShareAlike to prevent that. But see my previous post for the problems
More information about the developers