[cc-community] [cc-licenses] DRM
rob at robmyers.org
Tue Jan 24 15:52:12 EST 2012
[Moved as we are not discussing specific changes to the license.]
On 21/01/12 20:19, Francesco Poli wrote:
> I was saying that, in some respects, a form encumbered by TPM is
> similar to a compiled binary, while a TPM-unencumbered form is similar
> to the source code.
An unencumbered form is similar to a non-DRM or non-proprietary binary.
An encumbered form is similar to a DRM or proprietary binary.
> Please note that I said "in some respects": no comparison may be 100 %
> Anyway, a copyleft mechanism with source availability requirement makes
> sure that recipients are not deprived of their technical possibility to
> exercise their freedom to modify the work, by making sure they are
> given a chance to obtain the source.
> But copyleft mechanisms do *not* forbid the distribution of pre-compiled
> binaries, they just mandate that source is also made available.
They do however forbid proprietization of the work.
Binaries are not intended to remove the freedom to use the work.
Proprietization and DRM. Proprietization is prevented by copyleft, DRM
is prevented by anti-DRM clauses.
If copyleft clauses are a DFSG-free protection of freedom (and the DFSG
explicitly names the copyleft-based GPL as an example of a free license)
then anti-DRM clauses are. Both defuse laws that attack the freedom to
use the work.
> In the above-described comparison, this is similar to an anti-TPM
> clause that does *not* forbid *all* kinds of distribution of
> TPM-encumbered copies, but just forbids those that do not also make
> unencumbered forms available in parallel.
It is not. DRM is the removal of freedom, not a convenience to the user
like the pre-compilation of binary executables by a distro.
> Are you really saying that you would consider acceptable a clause that
> insisted that the work can only be distributed in source form?!?
> Such a clause would forbid any distribution of pre-compiled binaries.
> The majority of GNU/Linux distributions (Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora,
> Slackware, and so forth...) provide pre-compiled packages, while making
> source packages available: all these distros would to have to radically
> change their package distribution infrastructure and manager(s), if
> most Free Software included such a clause.
Gentoo demonstrates that this is not a problem.
And anyway, people could always get hold of a copy of the software
without the source-only condition attached and compile that. ;-)
> I am convinced that such a clause should be regarded as non-free
> (see the Debian Free Software Guideline #2:
DFSG 2 only states that source form must be allowed if the software is
More information about the cc-community