Re: logos and the BSD license

>>>>> The main point is, however, that it is not completely clear how the
>>>>> BSD license, a software license, applies to graphics. So maybe there
>>>>> is nothing wrong with having the BSD license, but that is not really
>>>>> clear to me (and perhaps others).
>>>> In computing, there is only software, hardware, and wetware.  Computer
>>>> graphics are also software.
>> The BSD license really doesn't apply itself to software very well.
>
> Huh!?  That's news to me.  Can you elaborate a bit?

I think I fat fingered that ;) I meant:

The BSD License really doesn't apply itself to graphics very well.

Sorry about that.

>
>
>> I don't see what the problem with Creative Commons is. It is quickly
>> becoming the license standard for creative works.
>
> Creative Commons is not a license.  If you point at a specific CC
> license we can discuss things, otherwise everyone is just handwaving.

Well, in the spirit of the BSD I would say:

Attribution (by)

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/


Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake




--

    === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
    Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
              http://www.commandprompt.com/