<Jason.Johnson3@amedd.army.mil> wrote:
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
> Bill Fitzgerald said: "So, under this clause, I
> *could* post to the
> list that any re-use of my work outside the context
> of this list must
> contain a link back to this page:
> http://www.funnymonkey.com/copyright-information --
> of my web site --
> I'm not going to do this, but it is within my legal
> rights. "
>
> Interesting though but it would not change any
> aspect. When you post to
> the list, the list creates four derivative
> CC-licensed works
> automatically: email, digest, RSS feed, and archive
> web page. Because
> you are initiating these processes through
> mechanisms you know are
> automated it would be incumbent on you to provide
> your attribution
> information with each email you send to the list
> (thought there is no
> directly applicable case law I know of).
>
Thank you for the clarification -- as I said earlier,
IANAL -- In all of the discussions I have lurked
on/participated in through various communities, the
lack of clear precedent has always been brought up.
These waters have not been tested in any definitive
way, at least that I know of -- does anyone on the
list know of any cases wrt CC/copyleft?
At the end of the day, you are left with what the
license seems to provide, as balanced against the
time/practicality of enforcing those provisions.
As you said, it doesn't leave you with many options.
But I still love the CC-NC-A-SA!
Cheers,
Bill (no-formal-attribution-required) Fitzgerald
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
[ For info on ISED-L see http://www.gds.org/ISED-L ]
Submissions to ISED-L are released under a creative commons, attribution, non-commercial, share-alike license.
