Ron K. Jeffries rjeffries at
Fri Jan 21 21:29:19 EST 2011


You are right, the license is not acceptable to sharism and qi-hardware,
but in NO way should constrain individuals from using this invaluable

Ron K. Jeffries

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 17:38, Wolfgang Spraul <wolfgang at> wrote:
> Ron,
>> For example, making the OpenCourseware available for Nanonote
>> even though it is not licensed sharealike makes sense for those who
>> simply wish to use a Nanonote.
> It is actually licensed sharealike, but what makes it unusable for
> a free project is the non-commercial qualifier. Neither non-commercial
> nor non-derivative is acceptable for a free project. Unfortunately
> Creative Commons has created that extra detail to take care of,
> well we do...
> In all this we are following the world's most trusted organization
> on free content, the Wikimedia Foundation.
> "It's not enough to have a license that restricts use only to
> Wikipedia or prohibits commercial use; these are treated as if
> there was no license at all."
> How easy life can be :-)
> Cheers everybody, thanks for the OCW link still. I love the OCW
> project, it's just very unfortunate that most of their contributors
> chose a non-commercial license.
> Wolfgang
> _______________________________________________
> Qi Hardware Discussion List
> Mail to list (members only): discussion at
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe:

More information about the discussion mailing list