3 ms·
They could have gone with the CC approach: For humans: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ For lawyers: ht
by pydave 14y ago
They could have gone with the CC approach:
For humans: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
For lawyers: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode
Granted, Microsoft's lawyers probably wouldn't approve (because people might argue that they're agreeing to the simplified terms that have wriggle room and not the iron-clad legalese).
- tedunangst 14y agoI think that works for CC because the people using the license are using the license and not the summary. It's ok if a third party to the licensor provides a summary.