Hello again,

"Sabrina Kilian" <ykg### [at] vtedu> wrote in message 
news:456dfd09$1@news.povray.org...
>
> So, what do we want to see it licensed as? Ignore the legal terms for a
> while, and let's figure out what we want it to be. Then we can figure
> out which license will work.
>

Well I'm in favour of a very liberal license, so personally I'd be ok with 
the terms in the CC Attribution license or even the CC Public Domain 
Dedication (though, with the latter, as I understand it, each work would 
then need dedicating, which could be tedious for contributors). If we agreed 
to a more stringent license that afforded more protection to authors then I 
can always apply the more liberal terms to copies on my own web sites, so 
I'm not strongly opposed to a slightly more strict license either.

I think it's really picking a level that we feel won't deter potential 
contributors but that also won't stop the community from modifying and 
redistributing contributions, particularly back through this collection. 
Personally I'd prefer that they could modify and redistribute in other ways 
too (e.g. for profit), simply because I feel that people are more likely to 
invest their time in something where there's a prospect that they'll be free 
to use it in more or less any way they like in the future (but I can't prove 
that).

Regards,
Chris B.

Post a reply to this message