Re: [dev] picture

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 05:53:30PM +0100, 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"

I liked that one two. But it was tongue-in-cheek rather than
practical. It means nothing legally. I tend to stick to
BEER-WARE where possible.

-- 
Kris Maglione
If the lessons of history teach us anything it is that nobody learns
the lessons that history teaches us.