[cc-licenses] Against DRM 1.0
Evan Prodromou
evan at prodromou.name
Fri Apr 14 09:54:59 EDT 2006
On Fri, 2006-14-04 at 05:21 -0700, Max Brown wrote:
> Who know "Against DRM 1.0"? It's a free copyleft license for artworks.
At least from Debian's point of view, it's not Free as in Freedom.
Keeping me from porting to certain platforms makes it not Free to use.
> The second clause prevents the use of DRM to protect the work: if
> licensor uses DRM, the license is not applicable to the work (on the
> contrary, CCPL licensor can use DRM);
That's not true. See section 4a of Attribution 2.5 (although this has
been in all versions so far):
You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological
measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner
inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.
This is one of the reasons that Debian doesn't allow CC-licensed
content:
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary
> if licensee uses DRM, license is automatically void (on the contrary,
> CCPL licensee can use DRM in a manner not inconsistent with the terms
> of the license).
So, even if a technology is consistent with the terms of the license,
and lets the user exercise all the rights in the license, the license
still wouldn't allow it? That's just stupid. And the definition of DRM
is a really poor one: "acts which are authorised or not authorised by
licensor" is, logically, any act.
This anti-DRM clause restricts the licensee's ability to port to
platforms where DRM is required. I can't use an image under this license
in many PDA bookreader platforms, nor in console systems like the
Playstation.
A much better scheme (I think) is parallel distribution: licensee can
use DRM, if they make an unrestricted version available, too. That way,
creative folk can experiment with DRM'd platforms, but the recipients of
the work can still exercise their freedoms to distribute and modify the
work.
If you think that the Playstation market is going to dry up from lack of
Open Content images and music, well, think again, and a little harder
this time. Maybe, instead, Open Content will benefit from being
available on DRM platforms.
In summary: this is a dumb license.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou <evan at prodromou.name>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20060414/2db765bf/attachment.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20060414/2db765bf/attachment.bin
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list