Changes between Version 5 and Version 6 of smo/licensing

Timestamp:

Sep 6, 2011, 12:36:12 AM (14 years ago)

Author:

Daniel Kahn Gillmor

Comment:

--

smo/licensing

@@ -8 +8 @@
 == Why Drop the Non-Commercial Clause? ==
 
-The Non-Commercial clause is ambiguous; It's not clear what constitutes a commercial re-use and what specifically is non-commercial.  Even if it was unambiguous, it would make the content not free for re-use by people who do legitimately need remuneration for their efforts in re-mixing, adapting, or re-publishing the information here.  We tend to think speech should be free, and we don't want licensing to get in the way of communication.
+The Non-Commercial clause is ambiguous; It's not clear what constitutes a commercial re-use and what specifically is non-commercial.  Even if it was unambiguous, it would make the content not free for re-use by people who do legitimately need remuneration for their efforts in re-mixing, adapting, or re-publishing the information here.  We tend to think speech should be free, and we don't want licensing to get in the way of communication.  You might want to read [https://lists.mayfirst.org/pipermail/support-team/2011-August/000439.html some of the early discussion about this transition].
 
 == The Transition (2011-08-31) ==