At the very least it seems to me we may want the CCL non-commercial share-alike license. The current license would seem to allow others to use the material and release it under a different license, so long as it is non-commercial and attribution is preserved. At the very least, I'd prefer to see a requirement that the license require that any derivative works be re-released under the same terms.
And, honestly, I'd prefer not to see commercial restrictions, so long as the share-alike clause is retained. Yes, it does allow people to make money off of it, but it also means that I can take the material they release and re-post it as well.
I know the commercial/non-commercial point was briefly covered on CKX, but I do not think the share-alike clause was covered. If you want to play with CCL license variations, check out the license choice page at the CCL site. ---Tim Rushing
~ Merkey v The Internet et al Docs ~ Yahoeuvre ~ tuxrocks.com (SCO cases legal docs) ~ scofacts.org ~ eagle.petrofsky.org ~ Zen's Den ~ Yahoo SCOX Message Board ~ Lamlaw ~ Microsoft Watch ~ Groklaw ~ Korgwal - a Groklaw mirror ~ nosoftwarepatents.com ~ Flame Warriors ~ SCOXE Wars ~ Get your Merkey Number here! ~ Digital Law Online
Make a new account