From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2007-03-31T12:25:52+09:00
Subject: Re: New presentation on Ruby

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/

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.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Ben Franklin: "As we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of
others we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any
Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously."