From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Wed May 03 15:22:19 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Wed, 03 May 2006 15:22:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FbPje-0000S9-63 for llg-board@lojban.org; Wed, 03 May 2006 15:22:18 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 15:22:18 -0700 To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: PLEASE READ: Re: Re: Archivist: PD docs... Which, exactly? Message-ID: <20060503222218.GJ17955@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: llg-board@lojban.org References: <20060424172644.GK2842@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <4457AF02.6040805@lojban.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 From: Robin Lee Powell Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 103 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 11:26:29AM -0400, Matt Arnold wrote: > Have you considered a Creative Commons license? For non-software, > it's more applicable than a GPL. I publish everything I do under > CC. There are a variety of Creative Commons licenses that allow > creators to choose whether to permit commercial uses, and whether > to permit modification of the work. I loathe viral licenses in all forms, so I'll take pretty much anything that's not the GPL. Creative Commons Attribution License is by me, Attribution-ShareAlike is very much not. But then, we (Matt and I) already know we disagree on this point. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/