[cc-licenses] ParaDist Questions
james at grimmelmann.net
Wed Nov 29 15:32:41 EST 2006
Mia Garlick wrote:
> actually, if i can elaborate on one point raised here. when i
> inherited responsibility for the licenses, i consulted with those who
> drafted them as to the scope of the so-called anti-TPM clause. they
> explained that its scope was to prohibit the use of technological
> measures that "control access or use of the Work *in a manner
> inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement*" (emphasis
> added). thus, the 2.5 and earlier licenses are not intended to
> proscribed access controls because access is not a right or privilege
> granted under the license agreement although they would prohibit an
> access control that also acted as a copy control measure.
> consequently, as part of making version 3.0 clearer in part as a
> result of discussions with Debian it seemed prudent to drop this
> terminology to avoid any such confusion....
This makes great sense. The definitions in the "controls access" part
of the DMCA are both strange and broad. Since the goal is to secure for
all the full use of the rights granted under the license, and those
rights are entirely copyright-rights, connecting up only to the "rights
of the copyright owner" prong of the DMCA is a good shift.
More information about the cc-licenses