[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 -- It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too
hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Mon Feb 12 11:29:09 EST 2007
Javier Candeira wrote:
> Terry Hancock wrote:
> Can you point us to the recent relevant discussions?
OMG. You asked for it...
Mia Garlick's original post on v3:
A New Hope:
Debian Strikes Back:
Whoa Guys, Traffic! (position posts):
Debian Strikes Back Again:
YA Revision to CC 3.0 (Mia Garlick):
Behind the Great Wall of Debian:
(general reaction to CC3)
(misunderstanding of TPM restriction language)
(I enter the fray)
(NOTE: my claim that allowing TPM is "non-free" is too strong,
what it is is "non-copyleft" -- somewhere down thread
I acknowledge this error)
(opinion on GFDL for comparison -- note that Debian officially
voted to accept the earlier GFDL sometime back)
Return of Commons Sense?
Would you believe I still missed a few threads? :-O
Still, I think this should give a pretty complete picture of the
situation -- at the expense of a couple of days of reading. <sigh>
> Would that requirement also make GPL v3 non-DFSG compliant?
The opposition's position is that so-called "parallel distribution" of
clear text removes the threat of TPM closure of a free work. However,
Greg London demonstrated the falsehood of this belief. His original
post and several variants of the "DRM Dave" scenario appear in the
You might want to read my summary of this scenario here:
The GPLv3, because it involves source distribution anyway, essentially
avoids this issue. The requirement becomes the inclusion of a "kernel
key" if any such key is required to compile working code for a given
platform (this is sometimes called the "anti-tivo-ization" clause).
Linus Torvalds has taken exception to this language, but Debian has not.
Regrettably, the GPLv3 solution doesn't appear to be workable or useful
for content. CC has always avoided a "source code" requirement, because
it is difficult to define what that requirement would be for many
different types of content (there would be much legal ambiguity and
resulting friction -- Debian already has regular problems with this with
software that tests the boundaries of what should be called 'source
code'. The situation is far more complex with artistic works.).
>>Fortunately, Debian has already approved the GNU Free Documentation
>>License (GFDL) which has an even stickier "in clear" distribution
>>requirement, so it would seem totally inconsistent for them to decide
> Let's hope for consistency.
Yes, let's. :-)
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
More information about the cc-licenses