[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - Public Discussion

Mia Garlick mia at creativecommons.org
Thu Aug 10 14:01:33 EDT 2006


good question. i think it kind of depends on how the discussion  
goes.  ideally i would like to have it wrapped up around the  
beginning of september (so around 4 weeks) but that's flexible if the  
discussion seems like it needs to continue...

On Aug 10, 2006, at 5:33 AM, Paul Keller wrote:

> Hey Mia,
>
> thanks a lot for posting this and doing such an excellent summary of
> the previous discussions. i have one small question at the moment, is
> there a deadline for the public discussion period or will it go on as
> long as necessary?
>
> all the best from amsterdam,
> paul
>
> On Aug 9, 2006, at 11:21 PM, Mia Garlick wrote:
>
>> # Public Discussion of Version 3.0 Launched:
>>
>> As was mentioned a little while ago (http://lists.ibiblio.org/
>> pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-May/003557.html), we are looking to move
>> ahead with versioning the CC licenses up to version 3.0 to improve
>> the clarity of the terms of the licenses and to address some
>> concerns of one of our first and very prominent license adopters —
>> MIT, with their OpenCourseWare project (http://ocw.mit.edu/), and
>> to also take on board the concerns of the Debian group about the
>> clarity of some provisions of our licenses.
>>
>> # New US and "generic" license
>>
>> Another big feature of version 3.0 is that we will be spinning off
>> what has been called the "generic" license to now be the US license
>> and have crafted a new "generic" license that is based on the
>> language of international IP treaties and takes effect according to
>> the national implementation of those treaties.  This may only be
>> something that gets IP lawyers excited but I thought it might be
>> good to share this draft with the community as well in order to
>> ensure full transparency and in case people were interested and/or
>> had any comments.
>>
>> # Anti-DRM language - possible parallel distribution language
>>
>> Finally, there has been much discussion - preparatory to releasing
>> these drafts to the public - about whether to amend the CC licenses
>> to include a "parallel distribution" amendment to the existing
>> "anti-DRM" (or more correctly an "anti-TPM" (technological
>> protection measures)) clause of the CC licenses.  As you probably
>> now, the existing clause of the Creative Commons licenses states  
>> that:
>>
>> "You [being the licensee, not the licensor] 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."
>>
>> As you can see from the drafts below, version 3.0 includes
>> amendments designed to make this language clearer.  But there are
>> some in the Debian community that feel that this renders the CC
>> licenses inconsistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines
>> (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines) (although the
>> group has deemed the FDL, which has similar if not stronger "anti-
>> DRM" language in it, DFSG-free http://www.debian.org/News/
>> 2006/20060316) and that if CC introduces parallel distribution
>> language we could achieve both freedom of content and freedom to
>> code for open and closed systems (see this discussion for an
>> explanation of the reasoning behind allowing TPMs on free content:
>> http://evan.prodromou.name/Free_content_and_DRM). The parallel
>> distribution provision essentially says that a licensee can apply a
>> technological protection measure to content only if they also
>> release the content in an unrestricted format.
>>
>> However, our international affiliates (http://creativecommons.org/
>> worldwide), as well as others in our community, are strongly
>> opposed to the introduction of this amendment for various reasons,
>> including: (1) lack of demonstrated use cases showing a strong need
>> among CC licensees for this kind of an exception to the existing
>> "anti-TPM" language; (2) risks of unduly complicating the licenses
>> which defeats alot of the point of CC licenses being to be simple
>> and easy to use and understand; and, (3) the strong opposition to
>> technological protection measures by many in the CC community
>> generally.
>>
>> Consequently, CC is currently not proposing to include this new
>> parallel distribution language as part of version 3.0; however,
>> because it is not clear whether the Debian community will declare
>> the CC licenses DFSG-free without it and because it represents an
>> interesting proposal, we felt that it was appropriate to circulate
>> the proposal as part of the public discussions of version 3.0.
>>
>> The discussion about version 3.0 will occur on this cc-licenses list.
>>
>> Below are drafts of the US v 3.0 license, the new "generic" v 3.0
>> license and the parallel distribution language.
>>
>> <BY-NC-SA v 3 (080806) (US).pdf>
>>
>> <BY-NC-SA v3 (0808060) (generic).pdf>
>>
>>
>>
>> <2ndmarkupDRMclause#2.pdf>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cc-licenses mailing list
>> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
> --
> waag society | nieuwmarkt 4 | NL - 1012 CR amsterdam
> e: paul at waag.org | t: +31 20 557 9898 | f: +31 20 557 9880
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses




More information about the cc-licenses mailing list