On 3/30/07, Chad Perrin <perrin / apotheon.com> 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 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.