… will publish using the most liberal Creative Commons license.
If you were wondering.
-
Meta
-
Recent Posts
- Interview with Adam Lashinsky — [VIDEO]
- Why some people are more innovative — [VIDEO]
- Forbes editor deciphers Steve Jobs’s Apple. — [VIDEO]
- Jason Ruspini rebuts Eric Zitzewitz on the regulation of political prediction markets. — [COMMENT]
- Eric Zitzewitz petitions the CFTC in favor of real-money prediction markets about politics. — [TEXT]
- Global warming is a big scam. — [LINK]
- A Swarm of Nano Quadrotors — [VIDEO]
- The Tragedy of the Commons — [VIDEO]
- Guy Kawasaki on Steve Jobs — [VIDEO]
- Inside Apple — [VIDEO]
- Mitt Romney’s taxes — [LINKS]
- A critique of Apple’s multimedia iBooks. — [LINK]
- Does Apple lack “generosity”? — [LINKS]
- Apple Education Push — [LINKS]
- Water Crystals — [DOCUMENT]
- Apple’s e-book software will allow publishers to make textbooks more interactive. — [LINKS + VIDEO]
- Alain Soral is France’s most dangerous intellectual… (dangerous for the French plutocrats, that is). — [VIDEO]
- Computers thru time — [CHART]
- NASA has finally understood the theorical basis of LENR (low-energy nuclear reactions). — [VIDEO]
- Why Samsung is no Apple — [VIDEO]
Great, can’t wait to hear more.
I would love for the dominant prediction market platform(s) to be “constitutionally open”.
The Institute won’t be an exchange, so your link is not of interest. However, the Creative Commons licenses are.
Mike,
Do you have stats about the Creative COmmon licenses? Which one is the most used? Why is it that the most liberal license is not widely used? (That one that says that the only duty re-publishers have is attribution.)