List Info

Thread: Re: short-form of licenses allowed ?
Re: short-form of licenses allowed ?
user name
 2007-05-06 08:46:33 

  


  

    

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 12:46:57 -0700

From: Mike Linksvayer < mlcreativecommons.org">mlcreativecommons.org&gt;
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] short-form of licenses allowed ?
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts

&nbsp;   ; &nbsp; &nbsp;< cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org">cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org>;
Message-ID: < 1178394417.8619.205.camellocalhost.localdomain">1178394417.8619.205.camellocalhost.localdomain
>
Content-Type: text/plain

On Sat, 2007-05-05 at 19:55 +0530, shirish wrote:
>; Hi all,
>&nbsp;   ; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I'm using CC licensing in all my correspondence. Now the
> signature can't be very big as I also want to have my PGP signature


> underneath. So it is ok to have it in the way I have it atm or is
> there some shorter way I can use. Please guide.
>; --
>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;   ; &nbsp; Shirish Agarwal
&gt; &nbsp; This work is licensed under the CCNSP 
1.0 License. To view a copy of
> this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/nc-sampling
> +/1.0/

Yes, CC licenses explicitly allow for giving notice with the a license

URL rather than a copy of the license.

As a practical matter I wouldn';t use "CCNSP" as an abbreviation. AFAIK
nobody has ever used that, so it would not really convey any
information.


Shorter version:

  ; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;This email is licensed under
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/nc-sampling+/1.0/

Also, I'm not sure why you would want to use this license for email.

Attribution-NonCommercial has very similar characteristics, is much more
widely used, and in my experience is more easily understood. &nbsp;URL for
the current version is 
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

Note that I am not a lawyer, etc. 

--
 ; http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Mike,
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;   ; Thanx for clearing my mistake. updated the licenses. One thing more, Is there some kind of announce-list or whatever as & when the licenses are updated so one can review if one wants to take advantage of the newer version of license or remain with the old version. (Something akin to GPL v2 or GPL v3) . Possible, not possible please lemme know. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://firegpg.tuxfamily.org

iD8DBQFGPdwolQ1T+3KaixcRAjA9AJsGDrpaPSnnXWTZ3cfp1nQx0xB7kQCfdJLD

WmHjrOwxqisiJKet/g10pPc=
=RHpK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;   ; Shirish Agarwal
&nbsp; This email is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/




  

  
  
   
     
    

  

    Re:  short-form of licenses allowed ?
  


  

     country flaguser name
United States		
     2007-05-06 11:23:24
  


  

    
On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 19:16 +0530, shirish wrote:

>            Thanx for clearing my mistake. updated the
licenses. One
> thing more, Is there some kind of announce-list or
whatever as & when
> the licenses are updated so one can review if one wants
to take
> advantage of the newer version of license or remain
with the old
> version. (Something akin to GPL v2 or GPL v3) .
Possible, not possible
> please lemme know. 

This list and the CC weblog, though both are high volume.

We're going to start using the cc-info list again for a
semi-monthly
newsletter, which will certainly include any future
versioning
announcements.  Subscribe at http://cr
eativecommons.org/about/newsletter


-- 
  
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer
 

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses



  


  

    
  

  
  
   
     
    






 [1-2]











   
 





about | contact  Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )