[cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses
zotz at 100jamz.com
Sat Sep 30 20:08:11 EDT 2006
On Saturday 30 September 2006 07:57 pm, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-30-09 at 20:59 +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
> > The second point is not a breach of the FSD, and is not a breach of Fair
> > Use IMHO (the use is not personal and is competitive). I also believe
> > that it is not a breach of the DFSG, but *even if it was* this would not
> > be a primary issue for a Free Culture license rather than a Free
> > Software one.
> So, this is probably an important line of discussion that needs to be
> kiboshed ASAP.
> For Debian, we are increasingly concerned with digital artifacts --
> sometimes called "software" -- that are not computer programs, namely
> music, video, text, databases, and images. These show up in games; in
> documentation; in Web applications; as elements of graphical user
> interfaces (GUIs); and in any number of fascinating extra ways.
> To run, the Debian system run requires all of these kinds of digital
> objects. Therefore, it's important to us that our users and downstream
> developers are able to exercise the exact same rights to these kinds of
> digital artifacts as they can for computer programs.
This is interesting. So, the reason Debian is interested is so that those
"non-programs" that are a part of Debian can be treated like the programs
that are a part of Debian. (Is that a correct restatement of the situation?)
If so, would an "in-program" and "in-docs" license work for Debian? (Not that
I like the idea, just asking if it would work.)
> So: we are absolutely concerned about Free Culture items and licenses;
> we wouldn't have wasted 2 years on this process if we weren't.
> Finally, and importantly: there is nothing new under the sun. Music and
> video is not in any way different from computer programs because of the
> existence of various DRM technologies; in fact, quite the opposite. Copy
> protection schemes have been an important part of proprietary computer
> program distribution since at least the beginning of the personal
> computing era.
> Free software licenses have been almost universally silent on the issue
> of copy protection because those licenses that require derivative copies
> to be Free count on a form of parallel distribution (source
> availability), and those that don't require downstream copies to be free
> don't make any such demands.
Perhaps, but I think equally important in contributing to the silence up until
now is that the platforms themselves happily run non-protected as well as
protected programs. If the platforms had been trying to only run protected
programs from way back when, we may have seen something different.
all the best,
(da idea man)
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
More information about the cc-licenses