chris.bracken.jp

commit ebd8e95fe1693822e8573fb4f97b7c5c8d5e798d
parent 00dd382c6abb800e3f404c766331946f13160b10
Author: Chris Bracken <chris@bracken.jp>
Date:   Fri, 10 May 2024 10:45:23 -0700

Publish site

Diffstat:
M
2020/05/thoughts-on-licences/index.html
 | 
6
+++---
M
index.xml
 | 
6
+++---
M
post/index.xml
 | 
6
+++---
M
tags/meta/index.xml
 | 
6
+++---
M
tags/software/index.xml
 | 
6
+++---

5 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/2020/05/thoughts-on-licences/index.html b/2020/05/thoughts-on-licences/index.html
@@ -85,9 +85,9 @@ That happens to be what we already use for <a href="https://github.com/flutter/f
 Commons Attribution-ShareAlike</a> licence.  But I don&rsquo;t believe that&rsquo;s
 actually the ideal match based on my priorities. Why is it that I&rsquo;ve elected to
 use a licence that requires that derived works also be licensed under the same
-terms rather than under whatever terms someone feels like, so long as credit is
-given? In the end I settled on the more permissive <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">Creative Commons
-Attribution</a> licence.</p>
+terms rather than under whatever terms someone feels like, so long as
+acknowledgement is given? In the end I settled on the more permissive <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution</a> licence.</p>
 <p>This feels to me a bit like the difference between <a href="https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause">BSD</a> and
 <a href="https://opensource.org/licenses/GPL-3.0">GPL</a> terms, where the latter requires that derived works also be
 GPL-licensed. This &ldquo;viral&rdquo; nature has always rubbed me the wrong way: rather
diff --git a/index.xml b/index.xml
@@ -64,9 +64,9 @@ That happens to be what we already use for &lt;a href=&#34;https://github.com/fl
 Commons Attribution-ShareAlike&lt;/a&gt; licence.  But I don&amp;rsquo;t believe that&amp;rsquo;s
 actually the ideal match based on my priorities. Why is it that I&amp;rsquo;ve elected to
 use a licence that requires that derived works also be licensed under the same
-terms rather than under whatever terms someone feels like, so long as credit is
-given? In the end I settled on the more permissive &lt;a href=&#34;https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/&#34;&gt;Creative Commons
-Attribution&lt;/a&gt; licence.&lt;/p&gt;
+terms rather than under whatever terms someone feels like, so long as
+acknowledgement is given? In the end I settled on the more permissive &lt;a href=&#34;https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/&#34;&gt;Creative
+Commons Attribution&lt;/a&gt; licence.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;This feels to me a bit like the difference between &lt;a href=&#34;https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause&#34;&gt;BSD&lt;/a&gt; and
 &lt;a href=&#34;https://opensource.org/licenses/GPL-3.0&#34;&gt;GPL&lt;/a&gt; terms, where the latter requires that derived works also be
 GPL-licensed. This &amp;ldquo;viral&amp;rdquo; nature has always rubbed me the wrong way: rather
diff --git a/post/index.xml b/post/index.xml
@@ -64,9 +64,9 @@ That happens to be what we already use for &lt;a href=&#34;https://github.com/fl
 Commons Attribution-ShareAlike&lt;/a&gt; licence.  But I don&amp;rsquo;t believe that&amp;rsquo;s
 actually the ideal match based on my priorities. Why is it that I&amp;rsquo;ve elected to
 use a licence that requires that derived works also be licensed under the same
-terms rather than under whatever terms someone feels like, so long as credit is
-given? In the end I settled on the more permissive &lt;a href=&#34;https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/&#34;&gt;Creative Commons
-Attribution&lt;/a&gt; licence.&lt;/p&gt;
+terms rather than under whatever terms someone feels like, so long as
+acknowledgement is given? In the end I settled on the more permissive &lt;a href=&#34;https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/&#34;&gt;Creative
+Commons Attribution&lt;/a&gt; licence.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;This feels to me a bit like the difference between &lt;a href=&#34;https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause&#34;&gt;BSD&lt;/a&gt; and
 &lt;a href=&#34;https://opensource.org/licenses/GPL-3.0&#34;&gt;GPL&lt;/a&gt; terms, where the latter requires that derived works also be
 GPL-licensed. This &amp;ldquo;viral&amp;rdquo; nature has always rubbed me the wrong way: rather
diff --git a/tags/meta/index.xml b/tags/meta/index.xml
@@ -64,9 +64,9 @@ That happens to be what we already use for &lt;a href=&#34;https://github.com/fl
 Commons Attribution-ShareAlike&lt;/a&gt; licence.  But I don&amp;rsquo;t believe that&amp;rsquo;s
 actually the ideal match based on my priorities. Why is it that I&amp;rsquo;ve elected to
 use a licence that requires that derived works also be licensed under the same
-terms rather than under whatever terms someone feels like, so long as credit is
-given? In the end I settled on the more permissive &lt;a href=&#34;https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/&#34;&gt;Creative Commons
-Attribution&lt;/a&gt; licence.&lt;/p&gt;
+terms rather than under whatever terms someone feels like, so long as
+acknowledgement is given? In the end I settled on the more permissive &lt;a href=&#34;https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/&#34;&gt;Creative
+Commons Attribution&lt;/a&gt; licence.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;This feels to me a bit like the difference between &lt;a href=&#34;https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause&#34;&gt;BSD&lt;/a&gt; and
 &lt;a href=&#34;https://opensource.org/licenses/GPL-3.0&#34;&gt;GPL&lt;/a&gt; terms, where the latter requires that derived works also be
 GPL-licensed. This &amp;ldquo;viral&amp;rdquo; nature has always rubbed me the wrong way: rather
diff --git a/tags/software/index.xml b/tags/software/index.xml
@@ -64,9 +64,9 @@ That happens to be what we already use for &lt;a href=&#34;https://github.com/fl
 Commons Attribution-ShareAlike&lt;/a&gt; licence.  But I don&amp;rsquo;t believe that&amp;rsquo;s
 actually the ideal match based on my priorities. Why is it that I&amp;rsquo;ve elected to
 use a licence that requires that derived works also be licensed under the same
-terms rather than under whatever terms someone feels like, so long as credit is
-given? In the end I settled on the more permissive &lt;a href=&#34;https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/&#34;&gt;Creative Commons
-Attribution&lt;/a&gt; licence.&lt;/p&gt;
+terms rather than under whatever terms someone feels like, so long as
+acknowledgement is given? In the end I settled on the more permissive &lt;a href=&#34;https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/&#34;&gt;Creative
+Commons Attribution&lt;/a&gt; licence.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;This feels to me a bit like the difference between &lt;a href=&#34;https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause&#34;&gt;BSD&lt;/a&gt; and
 &lt;a href=&#34;https://opensource.org/licenses/GPL-3.0&#34;&gt;GPL&lt;/a&gt; terms, where the latter requires that derived works also be
 GPL-licensed. This &amp;ldquo;viral&amp;rdquo; nature has always rubbed me the wrong way: rather