From: Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@...>
Date: 2007-03-31T11:52:21+09:00
Subject: Re: New presentation on Ruby

On 3/30/07, Eleanor McHugh <eleanor@games-with-brains.com> wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2007, at 02:02, Gregory Brown wrote:
> > On 3/30/07, Chauk-Mean P <chauk.mean@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >
> > Hi.  There is no such thing as the Creative Commons License.
> >
> > Creative Commons maintains a number of licenses, and there is only one
> > that is actually public domain:
> >
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
> >
> > You should be sure to link the actual license you are using, and
> > unless you actually intended to use the public domain license, you
> > might consider something like the sharealike and attribute license,
> > which allows you to retain more rights over your work while still
> > giving people their freedom.
> >
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
> >
> > If you intended to use the CC Public Domain License and just left out
> > the link, and understand the implications of releasing works into the
> > public domain rather than under a free documentation license with some
> > rights reserved, ignore this and thank you for your kindness. :)
>
> Alternately if your main concern is attribution for your work, you
> might like to use a variant of the Anarchic Ownership License (http://
> www.toxic-frock.tv/anarchicownershi.html) which whilst probably
> flawed does a good job of getting the point across that:
>
> a. you wrote your stuff;
> b. other people can use your stuff;
> c. they must credit you for creating it.
>
> Of course now some clever bugger will point out how flawed it is, and
> doubtless several thousand others will use up my server bandwidth for
> the month ;)

Standard licensing choices are better.  Ellie, is this what you're looking for?
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/