[cc-licenses] Fwd: Parallel Distribution and Non-Copyleft Licenses
zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed Dec 6 07:08:56 EST 2006
On Tuesday 05 December 2006 10:22 pm, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> <quote who="Terry Hancock" date="Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 06:55:58AM -0600">
> > Nic Suzor wrote:
> > The anti-TPM clause is a *DISTRIBUTION* requirement, not a use
> > restriction.
> The reality is that most of the major examples used on this list are
> systems where users cannot apply their own DRM. In these cases, they are
> distribution is a prerequisite. As a result, the terms are effectively
> interchangable for the sake of argument.
Benjamin, to you knowledge, is that a technical problem with the systems, or a
business problem with those "selling" the systesm? Are there any people
"blessed" for the systems, or does each system have DRM Dave only?
> There are 7-8 people who have contributed between 30 and 90 emails to
> this discussion so far. If you're one of them, there's a decent chance
> that you've repeated yourself a bit. Those of us, and I'm guilty of this
> as well, might want to consider standing down a little bit or taking the
> back-and-forths off the list.
Combining two emails to answer two in one.
I would be cool to go off lise for some of this. That has actually been going
on already. I do feel that we are the poorer for it though. The record will
not be complete. And, people might feel like things get done behind closed
doors and not out in the open.
I know in may case I do end up repeating myself at times, but it is often
because people misunderstand or mis-state my position again and again. What
else can one do in this case? Still, I too will try. Should there be two
lists for cases like this?
> If you *haven't* spoken up, it would be great to hear from you!
all the best,
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
Sayings (Winner 2006)
More information about the cc-licenses