Re: [dev] picture

Hi list,

Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> On 21 June 2010 17:27, Uriel<uriel_AT_berlinblue.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:56 PM, anonymous<ake7zefe_AT_lavabit.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 09:46:12PM +0200, ⚖ Alexander "Surma" Surma wrote:
>>>> I was just about to ask, Creatives Common BY-SA?
>>>
>>> Already discussed on this list, but for software instead of art.
>>> Unlicense[1] for software,
>>
>> While in principle I like the idea of the 'unlicense', its legal value
>> is very questionable. For software and code sticking with the classic
>> BSD/MIT/ISC licenses is a much better idea.
>>
>> I personally 'dual-license' my code as ISC and then release it to the
>> public domain.
>
> I kind of liked the license 20h was using in the past:
>
> "Copy me if you can"

it is not a license. I am pretending that everyone's considering
my work public domain. It is a post-license. Because of a lawyer,
who analyzed this[0], regarding Geomyidae, I changed all maybe
useful code to MIT/X.
MIT/X is the best balance between "Keep respect to me." and "Kim-
Jong Uriel", yes, build your physical package with it.".

Sincerely,

Christoph

[0]
http://blog.iusmentis.com/2008/09/29/geomyidae-publiek-domein-behalve-als-u-niet-netjes-handelt/
Received on Mon Jun 21 2010 - 18:34:44 UTC