>>>>> 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/